Whosoever Will: Off to a Good Start by Peter Lumpkins

 Looks as if Whosoever Will:  A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism edited by Drs. David Allen and Steve Lemke and published by B&H Publishing Group is already on backorder. I'm told the first printing of Whosoever Will sold out in two weeks. B&H is scurrying to get a second printing. It appears the wait time is 4-6 weeks.

Whosoever thinks the young, restless, and Reformed coddling among Southern Baptists is not getting the attention of the grassroots Southern Baptist Convention may need to rethink their proposition.

Our congratulations to Drs. Allen and Lemke as well as all the contributors to the volume.  Your essays benefit the theo-biblical health of the SBC more than you realize.

With that, I am...

Peter 

Comments

[aaron]

How many were printed in the first run?

[Chris Roberts]

It's worth noting that most of the purchased copies have probably gone to us YRR folks. :)

[The Seeking Disciple]

I am one of the backorders then. I ordered the book and it has yet to come in at my local Lifeway store. That is a good sign. All too often there are more than enough theology books left on the shelves while poor theology books such as The Shack sell like crazy.

[David R. Brumbelow]

I got "Whosoever Will" by Allen & Lemke last week. So far I've just skimmed through it. It is even better than I expected.

Especially interesting are the numerous quotes of famous Calvinists who apparently believed in unlimited atonement. I hope the book continues to sell well; I think it will.
David R. Brumbelow

[peter]

Aaron,

I could not tell you...

Chris,

That's funny. It's also quite possibly true ;^)

TSD,

I looked on Amazon but the site did not indicate it's on backorder. In fact, I don't think it will until one actually purchases. Perhaps you book got thru...

David,

I agree. I have read only two chapters thus far--Allen & Yarnell--both of which are grand slams...

Also I observed your note at another blog who wrote hardly a positive piece. My basic complaint is, the blogger neither attended the J316 nor has read the book, but he is cockfire sure both are undeserving blanks. For me this is disturbing. More and more we observe some of the younger SBs content to blather on about things they haven't taken the time to digest. Tragic...

With that, I am...
Peter

[Mark]

Peter,

The other blogger did not write a critique of the content of the conference nor book. He made an observation of how the content has been and may be received. I would understand your complaint if he were actually interacting with material he had not read or heard, but he's not. Why is this disturbing?

David,

There are different understandings of the aspect of Christ's death and the non-elect.

Mark

[peter]

Mark,

Had I wanted to name the blogger, Mark, I would have. Since I did not, it's puzzling precisely why you'd bother to engage my comment to David. Even so, what you wrote makes little sense to me. And, yes, it *is* disturbing when, as you put it, "observations" are issued based upon uninformed hearsay.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Robin Foster]

Peter

It is not backed ordered for those of us who own a Kindle. One click and 60 seconds later, I am reading the Forward by Johnny Hunt. All done from the comforts of my study for about $15 off the list price. Now the tough job, to convince my wife I R-E-A-L-L-Y needed the book. ;-)

[Jacob Hall]

I got my copy from Dr. Land, who signed it. He walked into Ethics (he is my professor) and had three copies. As a YRR guy, I was planning on getting a copy, but getting one signed by Dr. Land and have Dr. Lemke (My provost) was too good to pass up!

[Tony Byrne]

Mark said:

"There are different understandings of the aspect of Christ's death and the non-elect."

Me now:

Yes, but the specific focus of Allen's chapter involves the "extent" question, or the imputation of sin to Christ. The decisive question is, "For whose sins was Christ punished?" As Allen notes, there are only two possible answers: 1) For the sins of every human being; 2) For the sins of the elect alone.

Allen then lists many Calvinists who held to position #1, but in conjunction with their belief in unconditional election and in a God-ordained special application to the elect alone. This position is different from the Bezan/Owen/Turretinian trajectory that is so popular today, such that the sins of the elect alone were imputed to Christ.

Allen's documentation of these differences can't be dismissed as if he's just quoting Calvinists who had a "universal aspect" of common grace flowing to all as a result of Christ's death, as some of the "live bloggers" of the J316C misrepresented him.

In the position that affirms that Christ suffered for the sins of every man are 1) "non-Calvinists" [including some Arminians], 2) the Bullinger/Musculus/Ursinus/Ussher/Preston/Davenant/Calamy non-Amyraldian trajectory and 3) the Amyraldians. Many of the Calvinists that Allen cites are that second middle/moderate camp, which is too hastily lumped in to the third camp by most. However, the Reformed historiography of Richard Muller, Carl Trueman, Jonathan Moore, Godfrey and Letham rightly distinguish these camps. This scholarship has yet to trickle down to average Calvinist, particularly the diletantes/dabblers on the Internet who aren't reading much in the area, but still speaking with the highest level of dogmatism on the subject.

Allen is aware of this recent historiography [as his article demonstrates] and Calvinists [in the SBC and elsewhere] are going to have to come to terms with these significant sources if they want to honestly, effectively and fairly engage his chapter.

[Mark]

Tony,

Did I question any of the above that you wrote to me? Please, answer is less than 1000 words.

Thanks.

[peter]

Mark,

No reason to get in a twit. And, Tony's word count is under 300. Just sayin... :^)

With that, I am...
Peter

[Tony Byrne]

Hi Mark,

The simple answer to your question is no, you did not deny the things I mentioned above. Nevertheless, since there has been continual confusion in the responses to these matters, I want to tell you why I wrote what I did above.

David B. said above:

"Especially interesting are the numerous quotes of famous Calvinists who apparently believed in unlimited atonement."

Notice that David is specifically talking about unlimited "atonement," not other general universal aspects of Christ's death.

Mark replied:

"There are different understandings of the aspect of Christ's death and the non-elect."

Notice that you seem to be moving in the direction of talking about other general "aspects" of Christ's death that relate to the non-elect, other than the extent of Christ's sin-bearing.

This change from the topic of the "atonement" to other aspects of Christ's death that relate to the non-elect is not new. On your own blog, Mark, just after the J316C, a guy named Stuart asked you:

"Can your theology allow you to tell a person you do not know that “Jesus Christ died for HIS sins”?

Notice that Stuart is specifically talking about Christ's satisfaction for the SINS of all people, i.e. the atonement.

To this you, Mark, replied:

"My answer is "yes" in so far as there is a sense in which Jesus died for all which does not necessarily mean He atoned for all sins."

Notice that you changed the nature of the question to the issue of general benefits, so that you can say "yes," Jesus died for all in terms of common grace etc., but not that He [Jesus] atoned for all mens sins. So instead of answering "yes" to Stuart's question, you should have said "no," and then specified that you still believe other benefits accrue to the non-elect as a result of Jesus' dying FOR THE SINS OF the elect alone.

This changing of the topic of the extent of Christ's sin-bearing to the issue of general benefits is nothing new. During the J316C, Andrew Lindsey falsely said:

"A peculiarity in his definitions is that Dr. Allen restricts the meaning of Limited atonement to the teaching that Christ's death in no way benefits the non-elect. This is how he can claim so many of the Reformed teachers mentioned before did not hold to Limited atonement."

See that, Mark? Lindsey changed the topic from sin-bearing to general benefits, thus misleading many people. Even in the handout that Dr. Allen distributed at the conference, he wrote:

"Limited Atonement - For the purposes of this lecture, this term refers to the view that Christ only bore the punishment due for the sins of the elect alone."

It is very clear that Dr. Allen has in mind sin-bearing when he spoke of "Limited Atonement" at the Conference, or the question of "For whose sins was Christ punished?" Since some Calvinists keep changing the subject in their confusion [Allen is not the one confused], I wrote what I did above, anticipating the change of topic YET AGAIN. In Allen's article in the book, we anticipated the red herring, so Allen wrote the following in footnote #11:

"Most in this group [limited imputationists] do admit, however, that Christ's death results in common grace flowing to all. The important point here is sin bearing. They do not admit an unlimited imputation of sin to Christ." David Allen, "The Atonement: Limited or Universal?" in Whosoever Will (Nashville: B&H, 2010), p. 65.

We anticipate the red herring in future reviews, and I thought you might be headed in that direction above. Consequently, I sought to cut it off before it even began, thus giving you several dreaded lengthy posts now :-) If and when you see the Lindsey-like red herring in the reviews/responses on the Internet, you will now know they are off topic and distorting Allen's focus and the nature of his arguments, which is so common among the mostly young Calvinistic dilettantes.

We might even call these Calvinists YDD's [Young, Dogmatic, Dilettantes], instead of YRR :-)

[David R. Brumbelow]

Tony,
That's just what I was about to say :-). Thanks for your comments. Perhaps this is some of why it seems a Calvinist will say Jesus did not die for all, and another time say He did die for all.

And I still find the quotes of well-known Calvinists in "Whosoever Will" to be fascinating. I think both sides will find them so.

By the way, I also noticed you were mentioned in "Whosoever Will."
David R. Brumbelow

[Tony Byrne]

Hi David B.,

Yes, Allen mentions me in footnote #15 on page 66-67. Since Allen and I agree on the issue of the "extent" of Christ's sin-bearing, we got together on his chapter to form a united front against the strictly limited atonement view, even though I think of myself as Calvinistic in my soteriology. Consequently, there are Calvinistic sources in his chapter that have not been seen in hundreds of years. He was almost able to include this quote, but time ran out:

"Sir, you know there are two sorts of such as oppose Arminianism. One that is the high sort, and the other the moderate sort that are for the middle way in these Controversies, and I confess myself one who have wrote several peices, so called. We that are of this sort, do hold Election to be of particular persons (not the choosing Believers to be saved with the Arminian and Lutherans, but the choosing Persons to believe): But Redemption we hold to be Universal." John Humfrey, Peace at Pinners-Hall (London: Printed and be Sold by Randal Taylor near Amen-Corner, 1692), 2–3.

That's one of the earliest sources for the classification system that distinguishes between the "high sort" and the "moderate sort" among the Calvinsitic responses to Arminianism. What Allen is doing in his chapter is documenting some of the "moderate sort" of Calvinists who maintain that Christ suffered for the sins of all men, but not to the negation of unconditional election and special application. These men variously label the unlimited sin-bearing concept, sometimes using "universal redemption," [Calvin, Davenant, Charnock, Edwards, etc.] or "unlimited expiation," [R. L. Dabney], or "universal substition," [the later Andrew Fuller], or "universal atonement" [W. G. T. Shedd] etc. Since these Calvinists use various labels, the issue becomes overly complicated, thus confusing average readers today.

This classic dualistic Calvinism, which maintains that Christ suffered for the sins of all but with special intentionality towards the elect, has been greatly eclipsed by the Owenic model today, even to the point where it alone is deemed orthodox or genuinely Calvinistic. Also, all those in the "moderate" position are hastily thrown in to the "Amyraldian" basket, since your average Calvinist today is not being told about different streams in the classic/moderate model, which eventually branches out through many of the early English divines/Puritans. The scholars I mentioned above [Muller, Trueman, Letham, etc.] are all distinguishing between English "hypothetical universalism" [a sloppy label and a pejorative] and Amyraldian "hypothetical universalism." They are diverse but similar streams. Allen's article, among other things, will help to remedy these neglected and misunderstood areas.

It was a joy to meet and talk with Dr. Allen during his research project. He's a true Christian gentleman that models the virtue of humility. He's also an ideal professor to have at SWBTS in the field of homiletics/expository preaching. May his tribe increase.

Grace to you,
Tony

[Tony Byrne]

David B. said:

"Perhaps this is some of why it seems a Calvinist will say Jesus did not die for all, and another time say He did die for all."

Me now:

Yes. Since there are many "strict particularist" Calvinists who maintain that certain benefits accrue to the non-elect as a result of Jesus' death, they are willing to say that "Jesus died for all." However, what they cannot say [with any consistency] is that "Jesus died FOR THE SINS of all." Why? It's due to their Owenic limited imputation views, such that Christ only substituted for the elect, or only bore the punishment due them. This is behind their frequent use of the double payment argument, which presupposes that Christ only bore the punishment due for the elect alone.

This is why it is crucial to ask, "for whose sins was Christ punished?"

If they say for the elect alone, then they are most likely of the "high sort." They may even be of the "hyper" sort if they go further and repudiate 1) God's love and/or general grace for all; and/or 2) well-meant gospel offers given by God to any of the non-elect [or God's universal saving will]; and/or 4) "duty-faith"/human responsibility.

If one says that Christ was punished for the sins of all men, then they may still be a Calvinist, either of the Amyraldian school or not. As for me, I am in the classic/moderate stream that I think is distinct from the Amyraldian school, since the latter group [the Cameron, Amyraut, Testard trajectory] had peculiar theological expressions and a distinct tri-covenantal structure through which they filtered these earlier pre-Reformational and early Reformational dualistic Christological categories.

I hope that helps,
Tony

[Mark]

Tony,

I suppose if you want to have an imaginary conversation with me without asking what I meant you're welcome to it.

Oh, and please feel free to take me out of context and apply a corrective to me for what someone else has said.

Do you think those in the SBC would be more favorable to Amyraut the way Dr. Daniel describes him?

Moreover, Amyraut said that the order of the decrees is like this: universal grace, universal atonement for all, particular election, particular and efficacious grace to apply the atonement to the elect alone...Amyraldianism taught an ideal universalism and a real particularism. This universalism was only hypothetical, not actual. Only the elect will be saved, because election is particular and not based on foreseen faith. Amyraut also taught the doctrine of reprobation.

History and Theology of Calvinism pp. 108.

Hope that helps!

P.s. How many of those quoted by Dr. Allen actually signed Dordt?

[Tony Byrne]

Hi Mark,

You said:

"I suppose if you want to have an imaginary conversation with me without asking what I meant you're welcome to it."

Me now:
It seems here that that you are referencing my impression that you were probably heading in the direction of a general benefits discussion with David B. above. He said, "Especially interesting are the numerous quotes of famous Calvinists who apparently believed in unlimited atonement." Then you said, "There are different understandings of the aspect of Christ's death and the non-elect." How is your comment relevant to David B's statement, except to suppose that you had in mind the issue of the universal aspects among some strict Calvinists that merely involve common grace? Also, David B. seems to have read Allen's article, so he should at least have a basic awareness of the diversity of thought among Calvinists concerning Christ's death as it relates to the non-elect, but you apparently assumed he doesn't. Why? What he finds interesting are the "numerous quotes of famous Calvinists who believed in unlimited atonement," that is, their teaching concerning Christ's universal sin-bearing. Allen's article informs him about other Calvinists, of the "high sort," who still believed that common grace flowed to all by means of Christ's death, even though they believe that He only suffered for the sins of the elect. Of what significance, then, is your remark to him that "There are different understandings of the aspect of Christ's death and the non-elect"? Doesn't he already know this by means of reading Allen's lengthy article? If my inference that you were going to bring up general aspects involving common grace was unreasonable, then please clarify what "aspects" you had in mind, and which particular aspects David B. would not sufficiently know about as a result of reading Allen's work. Did you want to challenge any of Allen's sources and interpretations of any of these "famous Calvinists" that David B. found "interesting"? If not, what did you have in mind by your comment to him?

Given all the alternatives that I can think of, my assumptions about what you may have had in mind at least seems reasonable. And, if what I thought you "meant" was incorrect, then I would hope that you would explain how I had it wrong in your last response. Unfortunately, you don't. If and when I am incorrect, I want you to know that I sincerely welcome correction and clarification, but that doesn't happen when I am not told where, what and how I had it wrong.

[Tony Byrne]

You said:

"Oh, and please feel free to take me out of context and apply a corrective to me for what someone else has said."

Me now:
Again, this doesn't help me if you don't show me where and how I took you out of context. I supplied the exact link to the particular comment on your blog (click) that I was citing for just that purpose. Actually Stuart asked a guy named Thomas the following:

"In a single sentence, how would you define the Gospel as spoken to a lost soul? Can your theology allow you to tell a person you do not know that "Jesus Christ died for HIS sins"?"

Stuart was clearly not asking if there are certain non-atoning aspects/benefits of Christ's death that accrue to the non-elect. He was specifically asking about whether or not Thomas [or a strict particularist like yourself] can tell a lost person you don't know that Jesus died for his sins. Instead of answering "no" to his actual question, you changed his question to something like this: "Can your theology allow you to tell a [lost] person you do not know that Jesus' died for them in any sense that doesn't involve satisfying for their sins?" This is why your response was in fact as follows:

"My answer is "yes" in so far as there is a sense in which Jesus died for all which does not necessarily mean He atoned for all sins."

Are these not your words? Where do I have it wrong? Just telling me that I am taking you (or any source) out of context doesn't help me. Again, where and how do I have this wrong? Show me, please. If I have it right, it's not a big deal, Mark. I am not saying you were dishonest, just confused.

I only used the above example to illustrate how others, including Andrew Lindsey, have also been confused and thus distorted Allen's arguments during and after the J316C. It's something that needed to be addressed, and now some who are "non-Calvinists" reading this blog can understand the issues as well, especially since I suspect that they will see the same confusion arise in future book reviews, particularly done by those on the Internet by immature, hostile, overly aggressive, disrespectful and very dogmatic Calvinistic dabblers.

[Tony Byrne]

You said:

"Do you think those in the SBC would be more favorable to Amyraut the way Dr. Daniel describes him?

Me now:

What do you mean by "those in the SBC"? As you know, it isn't a monolithic society. Also, it's a bit ambiguous to me what you mean by "favorable." Clearly those who are not Calvinistic in any sense would not agree with Amyraut's theology, but studied "non-Calvinistic" Southern Baptists have always tolerated and respected the tradition of moderate Calvinism. This is why they can and do use Millard Erickson's Christian Theology text. This is why they can respect the work of Bruce Ware. This is why SWBTS seminary can have moderate Calvinists on staff, and the Dean of Theology there [Dr. Allen] is willing to hire any qualified moderate Calvinist professors. Are there some half-baked, knuckle-dragging swamp-dwellers in the SBC who would be and are hostile to anything remotely like Calvinism? Sure, but they are not the type associated in any way with Allen's group at SWBTS. He would rebuke them for wanting to run any non-hyper Calvinist out of the SBC, just as he would rebuke any intolerant Calvinist wanting to run "non-Calvinists" out of the SBC.

Dr. Allen knows about my own moderate Calvinistic beliefs and he is not hostile to it at all, even though he disagrees with it in areas. The man is so gracious, I suspect he would be willing to hire me to teach theology at SWBTS if I had the necessary training, credentials and/or experience. Also, as a result of Allen's kind-hearted interaction with me, he is much better equipped to inform his "non-Calvinistic" friends about the varieties of Calvinism, particularly the moderate views of God and Christ's cross-work that go back to the early Reformation period. They see them believing strongly in God's love for all men, that God is gracious to all men, that God desires the salvation of all men according to His revealed will; and that many Calvinistic stalwarts, such as Amyraut, believed that Christ suffered for the sins of all men. Peter Lumpkins is not hostile toward me either, even though we have significant soteriological disagreements. He has graciously allowed/suffered many of my book-length comments to pass, like these :-)

In contrast, I go over to your blog after the J316C and I quickly see this kind of comment from M Burke, which was never rebuked or deleted:

"Tony is a well known liar and troublemaker. Don't respond to him other than to ban him ."

This is just a small sample of the kind of thing I have experienced on a steady basis from fellow Calvinists. Since I am a former Roman Catholic who was converted at age 20, I have experienced some hostility from them. But, still, it hasn't matched the abuse I have received from fellow Calvinists. I am not exaggerating. I have experienced more abuse and slander from fellow Calvinists than from any other group I have interacted with, whether in person or on the Internet, in the course of my 20+ years as a Christian.

Even if "those in the SBC" were hostile to my alleged "Amyraldian" beliefs, I still don't think it would match the abuse and hostility I have received from fellow Calvinists. When I have spoken with Arminians and other kinds of "non-Calvnists" and they seem somewhat hostile, I readily sympathize. I suspect that many times it is because they've been condescendingly kicked in the teeth and bruised by other Calvinists in the past, who have neither spoken carefully nor with grace/patience. These "non-Calvinists" are usually stunned that I believe that Christ suffered for the sins of all men, and that by the ordination of God's kind intention. They may be surprised that I take a univeral reading of all the controversial passages, whether it is Matt. 23:37; John 1:29, 3:16, 5:34; 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 2:1, 3:9; 1 John 2:2, etc. I follow the moderate Calvinsitic interpretations of these passages like Wolfgang Musculus and Ezekiel Culverwell, among others.

"Non-Calvinists" in the SBC would readily perceive my sincere pleadings for all men to be saved, and that I am grounding it in God's own extreme vehement and earnest desire (to use Samuel Rutherford's language) for the salvation of all men, as clearly testified in scripture. The bulk of the "non-Calvinists" would accept me, I think. It's only the few unstudied and immature radicals who would not, but that sort are on both sides of the theological aisle.

[Tony Byrne]

You said:

"How many of those quoted by Dr. Allen actually signed Dordt?"

Me now:

On page 67, Allen lists these as moderates at Dort: Matthias Martinius, Samuel Ward, Thomas Goad, Joseph Hall, Ludwig Crocius, and Johann Heinrich Alstead. These names are well-known as moderate. Richard Muller acknowledges many of them as such. Allen knows there were a good share of strict Calvinists there as well. He also rightly notes the rarely known fact that there were even some hyper-Calvinists present from Gelderland and Friesland who rejected free offers (p. 77, n. 56), accurately citing Godfrey and Thomas for support. Moderate Calvinists, high Calvinists and a handful of kooks were all present :-)

There is a similar mixture of Calvinists present at Westminster, but I don't know of any who were hyper. The closest to that extreme position might be George Gillespie, since there are concerns about his views on the love of God for all men. If one thinks eternal justification qualifies one as hyper (I don't), then William Twisse qualifies.

Why do you ask about signers of Dort? If you and others want to check these and other names, see the excellent list and primary sources at the Calvin and Calvinism blog.

I sincerely mean this: I hope that helps.

Tony

[peter]

Tony,

Thanks for the thorough engagement on this issue. And, you are right about Dr. Allen whom I think represents both the scholarly and grassroots attitudes toward Calvinism per se. No one honestly cares *until* yahoos unrelentingly position high Calvinism as not only the exclusively acceptable form of Calvinism but also make it the exclusively acceptable doctrine of our historic Southern Baptist heritage.

Your treatment as a convictional Calvinist from convictional Calvinists, Tony, stands as the quintessential poster-boy of precisely my point. You are not tolerated because you do not fit their exclusivity. If this is correct, think how self-professing non-Calvinists are not tolerated either albeit the theological intoleration presently appears under stronger stealth (perhaps for PR reasons? Who knows?). And, the way I see it, Founders has been on this crusade since 1982.

Unfortunately, advocates fail to understand that, in significant ways, they themselves remain the primary reason Calvinism is such a provocative topic in SBC life presently. Their overly aggressive approach to "reform" churches continues to blow apart any hope for meaningful solution.

For my part, until the Founders vision to "reform" the SBC "one church at a time" in recovering the "lost gospel" of "high Calvinism" is publicly forfeited, and public defenses by Founders' advocates cease for hyperistic beliefs like James White entertains, little hope exists that the SBC will move beyond our present conflict.

Thanks Tony. I realize my comment did not necessarily address any point you or Mark made. However, bloghosts do have some liberties ;^)

Grace.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Mark]

Tony said,

Stuart was clearly not asking if there are certain non-atoning aspects/benefits of Christ's death that accrue to the non-elect.

This seems to me an assumption. If you simply read Stuart's next comment you will see that he was actually confused by my comment. It isn't until a few comments later that he understands better what I was saying.

See, since Stuart was asking me what I thought I know what I was saying. He did not ask if there is way that my answer can fit into his doctrinal paradigm.

I suppose you don't realize it, but you really come across as taking down to people at times. You assume and blast away "hoping it helps" when you might actually misunderstand where someone else is coming from.

For example, you ask what I mean by my Amyraut comment. Did you get my answer yet? No, but that did not stop you from going on and hammering out word after word in response.

Now, I will just say never mind. I don't have time to weed through your paragraphs to each of my one sentences. I don't have time to go through and explain what I was getting at, especially, since you don't take the liberty to slow down and ask. We are probably not that far off from understanding each other, however, I fear each sentence will only bring 100's more assuming words in response.

I hope that helps!

Mark

P.s. Have you ever debate Dave Armstrong on Roman Catholicism? I think you'd do well there. :)