Several weeks ago, I posted a mini-review of Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique on my Facebook feed. I gave it favorable remarks specifically highlighting a few of its chapters one of which was David Allen's chapter critiquing the Reformed understanding of limited atonement. No recent scholar in Baptist life has researched and written more on the biblical, theological, and historical understanding of the extent, intent, and application of the atonement. His mammoth work on the extent of the atonement remains a remarkable display of his accomplished scholarship.
There were many positive responses and a few negative ones to my mini-review. While I've used Facebook as a social tool, mostly to post family and fun stuff, I've never quite got into theological engagement on the Facebook platform. Being an historian, I do, however, frequently post quips and quotes from days gone by, mostly of unknown or forgotten theologians, preachers, churchmen, etc. Hence, I recently posted a quote from 19th century influential theologian, J.R. Graves (1820-1893) reflecting his vigorous disagreement with both Calvinist and Arminian understanding of the biblical texts on the atonement of Jesus Christ.
One of my Facebook friends, Jon Bowlin, not only offered remarks about Graves, but also cited the mini-review I'd earlier posted suggesting after buying the book and reading Allen's chapter which I favorably cited, he was completely unimpressed. Subsequently, he wrote what I would judge both unfair and uncomely criticisms if not insulting remarks toward Allen.
Below is Jon's comment followed by my lengthy response. I chose to post this exchange here rather than continue on Facebook for two reasons. First, my response was too lengthy to post. And rather than chop it up, I wanted to keep it together. Second, exchanging is much more reader friendly on a blog platform than on Facebook. And, while I do not know if the exchange will continue, I wanted to at least try it here.
Jon Bowlin's Original Response
Jon,
Thanks for the feedback. You write, “The Calvinist has a way of reconciling the all passages with the ones that support Particular redemption”, subsequently offering an example (see below). Let me first say, that the claims within many quotes I post on Facebook, especially from historical figures (like Graves’ quote above), do not necessarily reflect my agreement with the person’s claims, or, even if I happened to generally agree, accurately depict the way I would verbally state my personal claim.
Rather, as an historian, I’m posting what others (usually long, long, ago in a strange faraway land) claimed at such and such a time. In the present case, I quoted J.R. Graves indicating neither his claims were true nor the way he stated the atonement conflict would be the way I would state it. My claims specifically were a) The quote comes from J.R. Graves; and b) Graves was one of the most influential Southern Baptists in the second half of the 19th century. Those two claims, as benign as they are, capture the entire thrust of my posting.
Now to the content you posted in reply, Jon. You claim, “πας in the Greek referring to categories of men (all kinds of men) not every individual or all for whom the atonement was made for” is one way Calvinists reconcile the biblical passages that seem to conflict with one another concerning atonement. In response, offering a way to reconcile passages on the atonement, ever how insufficient the offered way might be, is, at minimum, an acknowledgment that some texts, for whatever reason, don’t appear to harmonize with one another. Hence, a reason presents itself to explain the age-old conflict.
Even so, perhaps what the Calvinist perceives as reconciling conflicting texts, the non-Calvinist perceives as rationalizing texts consequently creating a forced harmony rather than a natural one. Know also that your basic claim that ““πας in the Greek” refers to “categories of men (all kinds of men)” is hollow to the core. Allen addresses this at length in the chapter you indicated you read but wasn’t impressed (88-90). I think you need to reread it and come back with a responsible reply.
You further criticize Allen because “He makes no mention of John 19:30,” afterward giving what you think is demanded of the Greek text, quoting from the “Blue Letter Bible app.” Notwithstanding your tacit acceptance of the Blue Letter Bible app’s presumptuous claim that John 19:30 demonstrates, without a scintilla of textual evidence, that when Jesus uttered “It is finished,” He meant the “pay[ment] for the sins of the elect” was finished, what you seem to overlook is, John 19:30 says exactly zero concerning the extent of Jesus’ work on the cross (nor does John 19:30 address either the intent or application of the atonement). Why, then would you be unimpressed that Allen didn’t address it? Why would he if the text does not address his theme?
Furthermore, Jon, you apparently but unfortunately accept what Allen describes as the “double-jeopardy” or “double-payment” objection Calvinists (especially on the internet) offer in response to non-Calvinists. Namely, “Sins can only be punished once, either by a substitute or by yourself.” I’d be a rich man if I had a buck for every time I’ve heard a Calvinist make this retort. Interestingly, Allen spends perhaps the longest single section in the chapter showing how this objection to unlimited atonement is entirely toothless (91-95). Again, perhaps you need to reread.
You also claim ‘“There’s no mention anywhere in the Thayers Greek Lexicon, Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon or Gesenuis Hebrew Chaldee Lexicon of רב or πολύς being a Hebrewism [sic] or “all.”’ Now to be fair, I’d bet a week’s worth of Starbucks that one would be hard-pressed to find in those lexicons any mention that “πας in the Greek” refers as you suggest to “categories of men (all kinds of men)” in the atonement texts.
More concerning to me is your ignoble disrespect toward David Allen—"David just takes for granted that because someone told him that it must be true.” Are you kidding me? You come here quoting as a reputable biblical authority some “Blue Letter Bible app” and have the brazen arrogance to reduce his scholarly work to presumption and hearsay?
David Allen hardly needs to accept a position simply because “someone told him that it must be true” (which frankly reflects more your own approach by uncritically accepting what the “Blue Letter Bible app” says!). He is a first-rank linguistic scholar and can come to studied, scholarly conclusions grounded in the biblical languages themselves. While such surely doesn’t determine that all his arguments and subsequent conclusions are impeccably sound, it does raise the question, I’m sorry to say, about whether you even know what you’re talking about.
You boldly claim, “In my research I found nothing of the sort.” And what exactly follows from this?
Again, you state, “All throughout the NT Christ’s work is seen as substitutionary atonement… Nothing about a potential atonement.” I couldn’t agree more. Nor could David Allen! Allen specifically affirms substitutionary atonement. “Scripture affirms penal substitutionary atonement. For clear evidence of this biblically, theologically, and as historically advocated since the Patristic era, see Allen, The Atonement” (79, fn 19). ‘The atonement is an actual, completed event. There is nothing “potential” about it’ (101-102). This really makes me question whether or not you actually read Allen’s chapter, Jon.
Finally, you offer ‘One last thing is David Allen’s handling of Acts 20:28 was not done with exegesis. His argument is basically “I’m right. Your Wrong. Take it or leave it.” Attached is a picture of David’s argument from page 105 of the book “Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique.”’
In response, first, you have the page numbers confused. The quote you cite is on page 83 not page 105. Normally, that would be totally insignificant. However, the two page numbers represent two very different sections in Allen’s chapter, and that does make a difference.
From page 80-104, Allen is dealing with “Arguments for Limited Atonement” covering seventeen arguments Calvinists routinely make for limited atonement. Page 104 begins another main section entitled “New Testament Texts Affirming Unlimited Atonement,” fourteen of which are specifically listed as explicitly teaching unlimited atonement (104-112) with six more added Allen claims implicitly teaches unlimited atonement (112-115).
The criticism you make of Allen’s handling of Acts 20:28 is petty, unfair, and perhaps even absurd. Let me show you what I mean. Being a part of the first section beginning on page 80, Allen cited in his first category a “small number of verses” popularly appealed to by Calvinists in support of limited atonement: Ma 1:21; Jn 10:15; Acts 20:28; Eph 5:23. At least one common thread stitches together an erroneous interpretation Calvinists cite in all four texts in this section –“negative inference fallacy.” Allen carefully explains what it is, and, in fairly good detail shows over three and a half pages how Calvinists trip over this in explaining Ma 1:21 and Jn 10:15.
After thoroughly explaining the first two texts he cited and how Calvinists commit the "negative inference fallacy" dealing with them, Allen offers a passing summation about Acts 20:28, as interpreted by limitarians, whom he concludes make the identical hermeneutical mistake he just fully explained in Mt 1:21 and Jn 10:15. That's the short paragraph you cited and screenshot to make it appear Allen avoided exegesis when that is decidedly not the case. To complain he didn’t do exegesis is just silly to no end not to mention the “I’m right. Your Wrong. Take it or leave it” spoof you offered as a serious reading of Allen.
Frankly, the “negative inference fallacy” plainly catches limited atonement advocates with their skirt up as Allen shows. Just because there’s affirmations that Christ died for his friends, his sheep, his church, and/or the elect says exactly nothing about Him not also dying for His enemies, the non-elect, and/or the entire world, numerous biblical texts of which explicitly affirm that He most certainly did die for the whole human race. What limited atonement guys need and require is a single verse—one single verse—stating unambiguously, Christ died only for his sheep, only for his friends, only for his church, only for his elect. Just one. Calvinist, R. L. Dabney, said it like this:
'That Christ says, He died “for His sheep,” for “His Church,” for “His friends,” &c., is not of itself conclusive. The proof of a proposition does not disprove its converse."
I’ve got other things on my plate I must do. If you have a legitimate question, I’ll try to get back. But I’m uninterested in a tit-tat, back-n-forth. I'd be happy to have a serious engagement.
Also I suggest you either read or reread Allen’s chapter. He deserves a heck of a lot more respect than you’ve embarrassingly offered.
Comments