David Allen sets the record straight: Limited Atonement is biblically bankrupt, theologically insipient, and ethically unpreachable by Peter Lumpkins

Founders Ministries put together several theological worthies to write its latest apology for strict Calvinism, Whomever He Wills   >>>

Names include seasoned professors--Tom Nettles, Bruce Ware, Thomas Schriner, and Stephen Wellum--professors all at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (the majority of the contributors are affiliated with Southern). The author of the chapter on Limited Atonement, David Schrock, is presently a PhD candidate at the same seminary as well as pastor of Calvary Baptist Church, Seymour, Indiana.

Given Dr. David Allen's devastating rejoinder to Schrock, one wonders if Founders Press  is now wishing it had secured the services of one of Southern's tenured professors to have taken a shot at overturning Dr. Allen's definitive critique of High Calvinism's theologically repugnant doctrine--definite atonement. Even if it had, however, there seems little hope Founders-type Calvinists could ever convince biblically literate people that their case exists for a theologically-sound, biblically-driven position that the gospel of Jesus Christ remains exclusively for an elite, elect people.

If you haven't read Allen's series, here's your chance:

A Selective Review and Critique of Whomever He Wills – Part 1

A Selective Review and Critique of Whomever He Wills – Part 2A

A Selective Review and Critique of Whomever He Wills – 2B

A Selective Review and Critique of Whomever He Wills – 2C

A Selective Review and Critique of Whomever He Wills – 2D

A Selective Review and Critique of Whomever He Wills – 2E

A Review and Critique of Whomever He Wills – 2F

“For egalitarians there is no place...for distinctive loves”-- 2G

Sometimes...“all” and “world” does not literally mean all people...— 2H

“Jesus makes universal invitations in the very same context where He affirms God’s particular choice of some and rejection of others”—2I

Comments

[Ron Hale]

Peter,

Men much smarter than myself have declared that the Abstract Principles of SBTS ...only adheres to four points (at the most) of the TULIP and not ... Limited Atonement.

Since the Founders movement ... seeks to take the convention back to the days of our founding fathers -- does it not seem odd they push hard to the extreme?

It seems they are pushing even the more Calvinistic pastors and people of our convention to take the next big step that really, really matters (to them) and become a ... Real Calvinist.

Yet, their founding document does not support this extreme approach. Is their relentless drive in this area driven by theology or something else?

[Jordan Hall]

The thought of God the Father punishing Christ for the sins of those already in hell is truly "bankrupt, insipient, and unpreachable." Not only does this blog piece mischaracterize Monergism (Calvinists believe the Gospel is for the "elite" - ever heard of "Unconditional Election"? Good grief)but it doesn't help to advance the cause of the "conversation" that both sides of this debate - at least publicly - claim they want to have.

It's very simple. If the atonement accomplished a payment, then the subjects of that atonement are the recipients of that payment. There are two tenable and consistent positions. The first is Universalism. The second is Successful Redemption (limited atonement). We limited that atonement's scope - IE it's intended for believers. You limit the atonement's power - IE Jesus tried to save everybody, but bless His heart, He did all He could do.

Only the Monergist can sing "Power in the Blood." The Synergist may sing of the blood's potential, but never its power. Shed for all...saving some. God forbid.

[Max]

I sure hope that Dr. Page's advisory team has been monitoring Dr. Allen's analysis on "Whomever" vs. "Whosoever". This is a critical consideration at this juncture in Southern Baptist life. Preservation of the "big tent" at all cost would not be wise as the SBC endeavors to move forward. It's high time for some correction of the course.

[chris]

Jordon,

I think your position here paints divine (and for that matter human) forgiveness in a short sided light. Biblically speaking, God commands and commends from the forgiver's side total release, that by effect demands total acceptance of the offense. However, reconciliation is meted out based on the forgiven's reception of the gift of forgiveness. Unrepentant people are by nature unbelievers.

To make the argument that total forgiveness makes Jesus impotent ("Jesus tried...bless His heart...") is to misunderstand the biblical forgiveness completely.

[Jordan Hall]

Chris,

We're not simply dealing with the handing-out of forgiveness, but the dealing out and absorption of wrath (which is the Doctrine of Propitiation). Jesus was the wrath-quencher for God's wrath toward us (we can argue later about who "us" is). This is the process by which Jesus was a substitute for us, providing atonement. Jesus literally absorbed God's wrath for our sins. Therefore, the truly cruel position on the part of God is punishing Jesus for one's sins and then (because the person is not "accepting" of God's forgiveness - which is an unbiblical concept to begin with) God punishes them in hell. Wow. Two punishments. Apparently Jesus didn't absorb their wrath after all. And here you have the meaninglessness of an unsuccessful, unlimited "atonement."

[Lydia]

" The first is Universalism. The second is Successful Redemption (limited atonement). We limited that atonement's scope - IE it's intended for believers. You limit the atonement's power - IE Jesus tried to save everybody, but ess His heart, He did all He could do."

This is the false choice either/or lens of the Augustinian/Calvin filter
that needs "total inability" to work. Humans must be automans because God is not secure enough to give us any free will.

[Stephen Garrett]

Dear Peter:

Your arrogance and highmindedness is evident. Calvinists who believe in particular atonement are biblically illiterate? Spurgeon was so? The writers of the London Confession were so? Oh you are so biblically literate!

I have not seen an answer to the query given in the above comments about Christ dying for men like Cain, Pharoah, and Esau. Did Christ die for these men? If so, for what purpose? Did Christ die for those who die in infancy? If not, how can you say Christ died for all men?

Blessings,

Stephen Garrett

[peter lumpkins]

Hi Stephen,

Sadly, your conclusion concerning my words nicely represents the same insipid rhetoric routinely coming from the Reformed sector, Stephen. I not so much as personally implicated a single Calvinist in what I stated much less the mighty, respectable Spurgeon. I judged a position as biblically bankrupt not a person as biblically illiterate. Can you not please note the substantial difference between the two before you leave such scathing remarks?

Nor am I personally interested in entertaining Jordan's question for the simple reason that, from what I can tell, he has not read Allen's lengthy critique of LA. Or, if he has, he absolutely disregarded Allen's careful critique of the so-called "double jeopardy" dilemma of "two punishments." And, if he or you think you can overturn Allen's assessment of LA, then go for it here and now. But do not expect to get by with glibly ignoring his lengthy, careful critique all the while you raise mundane questions which Allen specifically addressed.

Not that you must agree with his answer obviously. Nonetheless, either show how Allen did not adequately deal with the "double jeopardy" issue, an issue particularly prominent in Calvinists who follow John Owen, or we'll drop the point for I have no time to engage those who do not take engagement seriously.

Hope that helps.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Les Prouty]

"Humans must be automans because God is not secure enough to give us any free will."

Uh, no. God surely is secure enough to do all His holy will. He could have given man free will. He just didn't.

[Lydia]

Hey Les, How is my favorite Presbyterian "ruling elder"? We just disagree, that is all. we have kind of been down this deep curb road before. :o)

[Les Prouty]

Hello Lydia. I'm pleased to know I'm your favorite. I'll not ask if I'm the only one. :)

And yes, RE I am...and SB pastor as well. Ecumenical and all. Yes, we jus disagree and yes been down this road before. I'm just not getting around so much anymore.

[Eileen]

incipient, not insipient

[peter lumpkins]

Hi Eileen,

Thanks for the grammar tip. I must decline your correction, however. I purposely put "insipient" rather than "incipient" since the two terms produce very different meanings. "Insipient" carries the idea of foolishness and/or the lack of wisdom while "incipient" has to do with beginnings as in the incipient stages of creation, for example. Thus, while the latter would hardly have made much sense coupling it as I did with "theologically," the former worked quite well, I think, indicating LA lacks mature theological wisdom, even bordering on a foolish theological trajectory given the explicit Scriptural statements to the contrary.

With that, I am...
Peter

[chris]

Jordon,

I understand HOW you have reasoned, and disagree. I understand propitiation and also understand that Jesus as God satisfied the complete wrath of God. As such he totally forgave. God forgives offenders totally, however, unrepentant offenders never enjoy the benefits of the forgiveness and live out the consequences of not receiving the blessing. It is not double punishment, rather it is restored blessing.

[Lydia]

"And yes, RE I am...and SB pastor as well. Ecumenical and all."

You need to write it out Les. Sort of like AA. Hi, I am Les and a Ruling Elder. It was not enough for me to just be a priest in the Holy Priesthood along with the others. I admit I am addicted to "Ruling" others. :o)

[Les Prouty]

"Hi, I am Les and a Ruling Elder. It was not enough for me to just be a priest in the Holy Priesthood along with the others. I admit I am addicted to "Ruling" others."

That's cute. Actually if one understood "ruling" in the biblical sense and if one was not embittered by past abuses by a few leaders, both seen (perhaps) and heard of, one would likely have no issue with biblical "rulers." :)

[Lydia]

That's cute. Actually if one understood "ruling" in the biblical sense and if one was not embittered by past abuses by a few leaders, both seen (perhaps) and heard of, one would likely have no issue with biblical "rulers." :)"

Les, if one "understood" it, they would call themselves
a SERVANT. It was good enough for Jesus Christ when He walked this earth.

BTW: You seem to know something about me that I don't know. Do tell!

[Les Prouty]

Lydia,

"SERVANT." REs are called that too.

"BTW: You seem to know something about me that I don't know. Do tell!"

Why no. I did not refer to you at all.

[Lydia]

""SERVANT." REs are called that too."

I was simply referring to the title YOU referred to yourself as to the blog world. You could have said 'servant' and your denomination could call them servants but have chosen to use the state church interpretation.

"Why no. I did not refer to you at all."

Gee, I must have misunderstood the condescending inferences of this from you to me in a comment. How silly of me:

"Actually if one understood "ruling" in the biblical sense and if one was not embittered by past abuses by a few leaders, both seen (perhaps) and heard of, one would likely have no issue with biblical "rulers." :)"

Sounds like something a "ruling elder" would write.

I believe the "biblical sense" is, servant. And those who are servants would never call themselves "ruling elders". Even "elder" is biblical. But ruling elder? A servant would be too embarassed. It is just not Baptistic as has been understood polity wise for the last 100 years. We moved away from our Presbyterian man centered authoritarian roots as a majority eventually after we lost the civil war and realized God was not on the side of slavery and their "ruling elders". We were humbled as was right and proper.

Word is getting out. Just last week an SBC Pastor who does not even read blogs told me that he sees some trying to move us to a Presbyterian polity. He saw this in his local associational meetings and knows it comes from SBTS in our region! He said he will fight it. I am thankful for servants like him who believe in a true Priesthood.

Les, you need to understand that I am not one of your "underlings". I could care less what you think of me and am not intimidated by petty men with big titles who try to insult to feel superior. You have no idea how blessed I am to not be living in the 1600's Geneva. I would have been burned at the stake or given my "third" baptism long ago. I praise God for the Founding Fathers. I suspect they were also thinking of Calvin, Luther and Cromwell when they wrote the Constitution.

[Les Prouty]

Lydia,

"Les, you need to understand that I am not one of your "underlings". I could care less what you think of me and am not intimidated by petty men with big titles who try to insult to feel superior."

I apologize if you took me as insulting. Actually my first comments on this thread in response to you were meant in fun, given our past exchanges. I would never think of you or anyone else as my "underling." I don't think of myself as superior. Quite the opposite.

And whatever you think of the title RE, I can only wish you could know the vast, vast majority of REs I have known the last 20 plus years. Almost to a man, the most humble servants of God I have ever come across.

[Lydia]

Thanks for apologizing Les. I did not really take it as "insulting" at all. I am looking at the underlying foundational thinking of the entire Reformed movement. And the historical fruit of the Reformed movement(Augustinian influence to the Puritans) over the last 1500 years or so. It is not a pretty picture and concerns me. I think it's roots are in tyranny.

I really wish you guys would rethink "ruling" elders. Words mean and communicate specific things, ideas, presuppostions. And some of the "ruling elders" might actually believe their title. :o)

[Les Prouty]

Nell,

First, how many ruling elders in a PCA church do you know? And of that number you know, how many are enamored with "ruling?" Please let us know.

Second, I really debated with myself about doing this because it may look so self serving. But maybe this will help you NOT in the future assume things you have no way of knowing.

I am a ruling elder in a PCA church. The link that follows is my site and is what I do, full time.
http://haitiorphanproject.org

Now, about that "caring for the least of these" phrase you mentioned?

[Lydia]

Les, The least of these as you put forth here don't usually challenge your doctrine or title. In several bios of Calvin it was often recorded that he was very compassionate with the refugees or poor but they were usually illiterate or would never challenge him. Yet in same bios he was brutal with those who were more his intellectual equals who dare challenge him. Some lost their lives over it while others were put on the rack,imprisoned or bannished.

[Les Prouty]

Lydia,

I fully expected a comeback from you. You didn't disappoint.

No matter how many worthy examples of leaders, ruling elders included, who i could point to...leaders who humbly serve and do Christ's work...there will never be enough to counter your perceptions based on some. i.e.there will always be a comeback.

[Lydia]

Les, I cannot imagine a humble man being anything but embarassed to be titled a "ruling elder". Makes me think I should kiss your ring. :o)

But then in your doctrinal tradition, God decreed it to be so even though "servant" was good enough for Him while on this earth.

And, You don't disappoint either as our sparing goes back a few months and I still have not learned my place. As a "ruling elder" you are just used to something very different positionally. You have decided to interject yourself into a world where not everyone is impressed with lofty titles. Some are working to change that, though. I am sure you are a big help being formerly SBC. :o)

[Ben Simpson]

I'm not a Presbyterian but recognize that the title "ruling elder" simply is an extrapolation of 1 Timothy 5:17, "The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching." It seems like a fairly biblical title, but I do believe it's a stretch to separate elders into two separate offices--teaching elder and ruling elder. It should simply be one office--either teaching elders that rule or ruling elders that teach. That's why I would just call them "elders" and drop the descriptor!

[Timotheos Patterson]

As I read (and have read for more years than I care to admit) this post and comment stream (like so, so many others on numerous blogs espousing this or that viewpoint and more than ready in an instant to come to theological blows), it seems to me more apparent than ever, that what is truly biblically bankrupt, theologically insipient and ethically indefensible is this interminable internecine warfare between theological kin. If anyone thinks that THIS is what we are called to as followers of Christ, the Day of Reckoning is going to be painful, bewildering and shameful for many an unsuspecting "Christian." We have real and serious work to do in this world, and brethren and sistern, this ain't it.

[Les Prouty]

Yes Ben. The idea of en elder ruling is certainly biblical. And since the fall men and women have resisted authority. Even to this day.

"It should simply be one office--either teaching elders that rule or ruling elders that teach."

I could be fine with one class of elders as well. A good case can be made for it.

Les

[David Benjamin Hewitt]

Peter -- there was a comment I posted in your thread about one of David Allen's posts -- did you see it, or did it get lost in the ether? :)

sdg,
dbh

[Bart Tucker]

For all on this board,

I waited for someone to respond to Ben’s and Les’ exchanges, but couldn’t let it pass any longer without correcting the errant systematic theology they are passing off as biblical theology.

Both the "extrapolation" of a concept of "ruling elders" and the assertion of an office of elders are bankrupt manmade ideas. It pains me when men distort Scripture to imply either. [I am likewise distressed when any man would claim the biblical model for local church governance – congregational unity (some might say democracy) with bishop oversight – is attacked as “from Satan.”]

The confusion caused in our churches is created by conjecture via interpretivist gymnastics as if the Bible is mysterious about the form and function of governance Christ established for His Church.

(1) The nature of the church is declared in Ephesians 5:

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself A GLORIOUS CHURCH, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just AS THE LORD DOES THE CHURCH. 30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning CHRIST AND THE CHURCH.

(2) The role of the Church is described in Ephesians 3:

1 For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles— 2 if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, 3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: 6 that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel, 7 of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power. 8 To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ; 10 to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God MIGHT BE MADE KNOWN BY THE CHURCH to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, 11 according to the eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord,

(3) The offices of the Church are defined in 1 Timothy 3:

BISHOP (defined in the singular)
1 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of A BISHOP, he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

DEACONS (described in the plural)
NOTE: “serve tables” [NOT WAIT TABLES] = conduct business or “administrate”

8 Likewise DEACONS must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, 9 holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. 10 But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. 11 Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

NOTE: Combined, the bishop and the deacons compose the elders of the church (some men are referred to as “elders” who do not hold either of these offices—because their example of spiritual maturity is acknowledged within the local body of Believers; others are called “elders” because of their age).

(4) The governance is detailed in Acts 6:

2 Now in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Hellenists, because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution. 2 Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. 3 Therefore, BRETHREN, SEEK OUT FROM AMONG YOU seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business; 4 but we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word. 5 And THE SAYING PLEASED THE WHOLE MULTITUDE. AND THEY CHOSE Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch, 6 WHOM THEY SET BEFORE THE APOSTLES; and when they had prayed, they laid hands on them. 7 Then the word of God spread, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.

NOTE: This congregational model ordained by Christ through the Apostles is reinforced in Acts 15:1-5 (“they determined … sent on their way by the church”) and Acts 15:22 (“with the whole church”). Indeed, even when Paul instructs Timothy and Titus to appoint “elders” (a bishop and deacons for each congregation) there is NOTHING in the Word – NOT EVEN A HINT -- that they should contravene the APOSTOLIC derived model [of the congregation choosing its elders (bishop and deacons) with an authority appointing or approving the congregation's choices].

CLOSING: The current FAD of setting up elder rule is a thinly veiled effort to consolidate power within the circle of a handpicked elite few – flouting congregational polity and totally disregarding the biblical model ordained by Christ. It is a refusal to submit to biblical authority which means the rejection of Christ’s authority. In the end, young men (or older men, for that matter) are insecure about their lack of leadership ability when they have to resort to employing “elder rule” as a means to centralize power under their control. They also demonstrate an immature knowledge about the fundamental nature of leadership. The Bible teaches that it is essentially a voluntary social contract extended from the follower to the leader (Contrast 2 Samuel 5:1-5 (“Indeed, we are your bone and your flesh … and they anointed David king over Israel.”) to 1 Kings 12:1-17 (… when all Israel saw that the king did not listen … Israel departed ...”).

-- Bart Tucker

[peter lumpkins]

BT

I'm glad you commented. I've had more rounds with Les & Ben than I can accurately recall. Like others, they've both been thoroughly corrected numerous times on various issues but still mysteriously show up and pose many of the same tired chorus remarks all over again. Hence, I rarely exchange much with the same dissenting commenters anymore... But again, I'm glad you did!!

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

David,

With all due respect I am not a go-between for you and Dr. Allen. I suggest you contact him personally. I've found him to be very conciliatory and helpful in the exchanges I'vew had with him.

As for answering your questions here, both Jim G and I offered you extended responses to questions you raised on another post only to have you walk away after we took the time to meet the challenge you gave us. I now will be very sparing before I answer your questions again. I just don't have the time.

With that, I am...
Peter

[David Benjamin Hewitt]

Time is the issue; I began to work on some of them and then the comments were closed. :) Fear not, I have not forgotten.

dbh

[Ben Simpson]

Bart Tucker is very confused on his ecclessiology. He said, "Combined, the bishop and the deacons compose the elders of the church." That claim is not backed up by the Bible at any point and confuses the New Testament offices of elder (aka, Overseer/Bishop and Pastor in the NT) and deacon. It sounds as if Bart has been in what has unfortunately become the traditional Baptist waters too long and needs to get back to the streams of the Bible.

[peter lumpkins]

Yes comments do close, David. It automatically closes after 2 weeks. It's a spam thing. As for time, I've already told you I personally have no time (not to mention energy) to answer queries which will predictably be unanswered which you have so often proven to be the case in the past. So if for you it is a "time" thing as well, I suggest you just post your responses on your blog at your leisure.

Thanks and hope that helps.

With that, I am...
Peter

[David Benjamin Hewitt]

Thanks, Peter -- and as I said, I'll be sure to link you when some of them are finished. :)

sdg,
dbh