Review of David Allens Book on the Atonement
The Extent of the Amende past David Allen. Nashville, TN: B & H Academic, 2016.
The book is nicely divided into iii parts. Function One is the extent of the atonement in church history, which contains four chapters: (1.) early on and medieval era, (two.) Reformation era, (three.) post-Reformation era, (4.) modern era. Part Two is the extent of the amende in the Baptist tradition, which is divided into three capacity: (i.) English Baptists, (2.) N American Baptists, and (three.) Southern Baptists. Part Iii is called a Critical Review, and information technology consists of two chapters. The commencement affiliate in this section is a disquisitional review of the book From Heaven He Came and Sought Her, and the concluding chapter is Allen's personal conclusion on why a universal atonement is important. And as with all skillful reference books, it has three indices: (1.) subject, (2.) name, and (iii.) Scripture.
The Strengths of the Book
Though this is not the only historical survey of the doctrine of the extent of the atonement, it is the only comprehensive survey of the topic. From Irenaeus (Advertizing 130-202) to David Schrock (b. Advertising 1980), and with almost every notable theologian in between, Allen has provided us with a valuable catalog of the history of the extent of the amende. Therefore, I am thankful, start of all, for now having such a resource available for my ain study on the field of study.
2d, I am thankful that Allen included more but the most notable theologians. Yes, Calvin, Edwards, and Hodge are given their due attending, but a plethora of other lesser known figures, such as Robert Morrison and Thomas Lamb, are likewise included in the survey. Getting ameliorate acquainted with these men is helpful. This, no doubt, took a lot of time and enquiry, which tin can now be a benefit to us all.
Third, I am thankful for how Allen represents those with whom he disagrees. As one who holds to a limited atonement view, I never felt like my position was beingness dragged in the mud. Allen remains respectful throughout the book. I didn't see whatsoever straw men lurking around in the pages either; each scholar seemed to exist represented fairly and in his own words.
Fourth, I am thankful that Allen did non bisect the historical positions into 2 over-simplified camps—limited atonement and universal atonement. Allen correctly divides express amende advocates into two separate camps: those who believe that universal sufficiency is extrinsic, and those who believe that universal sufficiency is just intrinsic. Beza, Owen, and Perkins believed that the amende, because of the space value of Christ'due south deity, could take been (hypothetically) sufficient for all the earth, but simply if God had intended it to exist sufficient for them. Thus, universal sufficiency is not actually (extrinsically) sufficient for the non-elect. Conversely, many 5-point Calvinists, every bit Allen notes, argued for more than than just hypothetical (intrinsic) sufficiency. For the majority of Calvinists, universal sufficiency is extrinsic; the atonement is really sufficient for the conservancy of the non-elect.
For example, co-ordinate to the Canons of Dort: "And, whereas many who are called past the gospel practice non repent nor believe in Christ, merely perish in unbelief, this is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered past Christ upon the cantankerous, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves" (2:six). Later on, not only does universal (extrinsic) sufficiency provide a warrant for the universal offer of the gospel, it brings greater judgment on those who refuse the gospel. Equally John Calvin stated:
And indeed, our Lord Jesus was offered to all the world… Our Lord Jesus suffered for all and there is neither great nor small-scale who is not inexcusable today, for we can obtain salvation in Him. Unbelievers who plough away from Him and who deprive themselves of Him by their malice are today doubly culpable. For how will they excuse their ingratitude in not receiving the blessing in which they could share by faith? And permit us realize that if we come flocking to our Lord Jesus Christ, we shall not hinder one some other and prevent Him being sufficient for each of united states… Let us not fear to come to Him in great numbers, and each ane of united states bring his neighbours, seeing that He is sufficient to save us all.1
Moreover, I am thankful that Allen did not lump all Hypothetical Universalists into the Amyraldian camp. It is piece of cake for some to place the hypothetical universalism of John Preston and John Davenant with the hypothetical universalism of Moïse Amyraut, merely this would be an oversimplification.
Though Preston, Davenant, and Amyraut believed that the atonement opened the door of salvation for the not-elect, Preston and Davenant believed that God had given the death of Christ a special intention (design) for the elect that made it inherently efficacious for them. In other words, Christ died for all, but He did not die as for all. For Preston and Davenant, there is something within the death of Christ itself that makes it inherently efficacious only for the elect. The atonement, by its special design, secured its own awarding for the elect alone.
Conversely, four-point Calvinists believe there is cypher inherent within the amende itself that limits its efficacy to the elect. In sum, they deny that the atonement has any objective efficacy at all.
For this reason, the hypothetical universalism of Preston and Davenant remains inside the boundaries of the Cannons of Dort, while the hypothetical universalism of 4-point Calvinists remains outside of those boundaries.
The Weaknesses of the Volume
Along with disagreeing with Allen's view on universal atonement, I see seven noteworthy weaknesses.
Stealing Our Men
One, I believe Allen wrongly considers as well many v-point Calvinists equally 4-point Calvinists, virtually notably Thomas Boston, Jonathan Edwards, Andrew Fuller, and Charles Hodge.two These men, according to Allen, believed in universal amende.
Past way of proof, He spends a lot of time demonstrating that these men believed that the atonement is actually (extrinsically) sufficient for the conservancy of all people. This is true of these men. And it is also true, as Allen pointed out, that these men rooted the costless offering of the gospel in the universal sufficiency of the death of Christ. Allen provides one quote subsequently another where these men make such statements.
Only providing one quote or a thousand quotes that reinforce the thought that the atonement is actually (extrinsically) sufficient for the conservancy of all people does not necessarily imply that these men rejected the doctrine of express atonement. Boston, Fuller, and Hodge not only believed in (bodily) universal sufficiency, they besides believed in express efficacy. As with the Canons of Dort, they held to the Lombardian formula—limited efficacy and universal sufficiency.
Thomas Boston held to both sides of the Lombardian formula: "Though Christ died just in the room and stead of his elect, on the cross sustaining their persons only, co-ordinate to what John 10:15, 'I lay down my life for the sheep;' nevertheless the price paid for them being of infinite worth, was sufficient in itself to salve the whole globe."3
Jonathan Edwards also held to both sides of the Lombardian formula:
Christ in some sense may be said to die for all, and to redeem all visible Christians, yea, the whole earth, by his death; however there must exist something particular in the pattern of his expiry, with respect to such as he intended should actually be saved thereby.4
For Edwards, what makes the atonement unique for the elect is that it around secured their salvation. He believed that Christ came to die for the special purpose of redeeming His people from their sins:
At present can nosotros suppose that Christ came downwards from heaven and went through all this upon uncertainties, non knowing what purchase he should go, how dandy or how minor? Did he dice only upon probabilities, without accented certainty who, or how many, or whether any should be redeemed by what he did and suffered?5
Though Allen is right in saying Charles Hodge believed in the universal sufficiency side of the Lombardian formula, Allen fails to stress that Hodge also believed in the limited efficacy side of the formula too: "It follows," Hodge claimed: "from the nature of the covenant of redemption, every bit presented in the Bible, that Christ did not die equally for all mankind, but that He gave Himself for his people and for their redemption."6
So, information technology seems strange to remove these men from the limited atonement campsite when their positions are safely inside the orthodoxy of the Canons of Dort.
Misses the Main Distinctive of Limited Amende
The second weakness is based on the first weakness. Allen fails to acknowledge that the main distinctive of particular redemption is the doctrine of limited efficacy. Allen, even so, claims the contrary. "The question of the universal sufficiency of the atonement," according to Allen, "is actually the fundamental issue in the fence over the extent of the atonement."7 He makes it abundantly clear that he thinks that the fence over the extent of the atonement centers on the extent of the atonement's sufficiency:
We will meet that the argue over the nature of this sufficiency first in the early seventeenth century is the cardinal contend in the extent question. I oftentimes hears statements by Calvinists that "the fence is non over the sufficiency of the amende: all hold the atonement was sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world." However, the debate is very much nearly the nature of the sufficiency of Christ'southward death.8
All the same, this is where Allen goes wrong. There are many advocates of express atonement who do not believe in express sufficiency as exposed by Beza, Owen, and Perkins. Beza, Owen, and Perkins, withal, do not represent all limited amende advocates. In fact, Allen acknowledges, in multiple places, that there is a difference of opinion among limited amende advocates on the extent of sufficiency. Is the amende intrinsically (hypothetically) or extrinsically (actually) sufficient for the non-elect? This question is answered differently by those holding to limited atonement. And, Allen is right in pointing out that intrinsic (hypothetical) sufficiency, held by Beza, Perkins, and Owen, has been the minority position among 5-point Calvinists.
And if this is the case, then limited amende is not ultimately about the extent of its sufficiency. What determines if someone believes in express atonement or not (at least equally limited atonement is defined by the Canons of Dort), is determined past whether that person believes in the express extent of the atonement's efficacy or non.
Express efficacy is the ane thing all advocates of express atonement take in mutual. Beza, Perkins, Owen, Boston, Edwards, Fuller, and Hodge (with every other 5-betoken Calvinist) believed that the amende secured its own application for the elect and for the elect alone. They may differ on the nature and the extent of sufficiency, but they all whole heartily hold on the nature and the extent of its saving efficacy.
Thus, limited efficacy (non limited sufficiency) is what makes the amende limited. Allen failed to make, or at least failed to stress, this crucial point.
Oversimplification of the Nature of the Extent of the Atonement
3rd, by failing to highlight this important distinction, Allen oversimplifies the nature of the extent of the atonement. Co-ordinate to Allen, "At that place are merely two options: (i) for the elect alone (limited atonement) or (2) for all of humanity."9 But for most v-signal Calvinists, this is a false bifurcation.
For Allen, the extent of the amende but touches the extent of its actual (extrinsic) sufficiency. However, the extent of the atonement is more complicated than just determining the extent of the amende's sufficiency. There are two sides to the extent of the atonement: (ane.) the extent of its extrinsic sufficiency, and (2.) the extent of its inherent efficacy.
Allen is mistaken when he limits the extent to sufficiency lonely. He is wrong when he says: "For all who affirm limited atonement, the atonement can but exist sufficient for those for whom information technology is efficient." This is not truthful for the majority of five-indicate Calvinists who take affirmed that actual (extrinsic) sufficiency extends to all universally.
Consequently, the extent of the atonement includes more than just its sufficiency. For 5-point Calvinists, express atonement means express efficacy. Thus, to disprove express atonement, as it is presented in the Canons of Dort, Allen has to do more than disprove the limited extent of its actual sufficiency. Allen has to practise something more difficult, he has to disprove the express extent of its inherent efficacy. Without making the distinction between the 2 sides of the extent of the atonement, Allen muddies the waters a flake. And this, I think, is a real weakness in the book.
Lack of Attending Given to Express Efficacy
Fourth, Allen seems to imply that limited efficacy is something that is agreed upon by both Calvinists and Arminians. For Allen, limited efficacy simply means "limited at the point of application."xi When he introduces the Lombardian formula of Peter Lombard, he defines the meaning of limited efficacy equally "the benefits of the atonement were only applied to the elect (those who believe)."12 Allen reaffirms that this is his understanding of the Lombardian formula at the end of the book: "Christ died for the sins of all but was only applied to those who believed (the elect)."thirteen In other places he seems to imply limited efficacy is simply to be understood every bit express awarding, and express awarding is something "all Calvinists and non-Calvinists affirm."14
Yet, limited application is not what Peter Lombard meant by limited efficacy. Lombard stated: "[Christ] offered himself on the altar of the cross not to the devil, but to the triune God, and he did so for all with regard to the sufficiency of the toll, but only for the elect with regard to its efficacy, because he brought nigh salvation only for the predestined."15 Lombard is speaking most the objective, not the subjective side of the death of Christ. More precisely, Lombard is speaking near what the expiry of Christ objectively accomplished. Co-ordinate to Lombard, the cross achieved universal (extrinsic) sufficiency for all, and it "brought about salvation only for the predestined" due to its "efficacy."
The efficacy of the atonement is the atonement's inherent ability to bring near its own application. It is not merely the idea of application, it is idea of self-application. Redemption was achieved on the cross and it does not need any extra grace or power (that was not already purchased by Christ on the cantankerous) for information technology to be practical. Rather, the grace and power that was secured by the expiry of Christ effectually procured its own awarding.
Of grade there is a chronological stardom between redemption accomplished and redemption applied, but for those property to limited efficacy, it is incommunicable for there to be one without the other. This is because the atonement furnishings its own awarding. And if the amende secures its own application, then the extent of this inherent power (efficacy) has to be express to only those who volition finally be redeemed by this power. Once again, limited efficacy, which is inherent inside the atonement itself, is the true nature of limited atonement.
Even if Owen was Wrong, It Does Not Disprove Limited Efficacy
Fifth, Allen seems to think by disproving Owen'south trilemma statement,16 which is based on a quantitative (idem) penalization, that he effectively removes any inherent efficacy within the cantankerous itself.17
According to Owen, if the saving benefits are just practical to the elect, then only the sins of the elect were applied to Christ on the cross. Thus, Owen concluded that Christ paid for the exact sins (idem) of simply those in whom His death secured saving faith—the elect. As Owen stated:
It was a full, valuable compensation, made to the justice of God, for all the sins of all those for whom he fabricated satisfaction, past undergoing that aforementioned (idem) penalization which, past reason of the obligation that was upon them, they themselves were bound to undergo. When I say the aforementioned, I hateful essentially the same in weight and pressure, though non in all accident of duration and the like.18
Because Owen believed that the atonement was a quantitative (idem) rather than a qualitative (tantundem) penalty, he logically ended that the death of Christ has to be inherently efficacious. Or otherwise God would be requiring a double payment for the sins of those who are condemned to hell.
And if the cantankerous is inherently efficacious, and then Owen was correct—the amende secured its ain application for only those whose sins were imputed to Christ on the cantankerous. For Owen, therefore, what makes the atonement inherently efficacious is the idea that Christ made a quantitative (idem) payment for sin, rather than a qualitative (tantundem) payment. Of course, this line of reasoning is what caused Owen, and other High Calvinists, to reject (extrinsic) universal sufficiency.
Allen is right in stating that many Moderate Calvinists, such as Boston, Fuller, and Hodge, disagreed with Owen on this particular issue. By holding to an extrinsic and universal sufficiency, they denied that the expiry of Christ was a quantitative (idem) payment for sin. According to Boston, Fuller, and Hodge, the atonement had to be actually sufficient for all since the gospel is a sincere offer to all. And for the atonement actually to be sufficient for all, the atonement has to be a qualitative (tantundem), rather than a quantitative (idem) payment for sins. As Hodge himself explained:
It is a gross misrepresentation of the Augustinian doctrine to say that it teaches that Christ suffered then much for and so many; that He would have suffered more had more been included in the purpose of conservancy. This is not the doctrine of any Church on world, and never has been. What was sufficient for one was sufficient for all…. All that Christ did and suffered would have been necessary had only one human soul been the object of redemption; and nothing different and nothing more would have been required had every child of Adam been saved through his blood.19
Just, even though Boston, Fuller, and Hodge disagreed with Owen, their disagreement does not hateful that they denied limited efficacy. In other words, proving that these men (Boston, Fuller, and Hodge) believed in universal (actual) sufficiency does non prove that these men denied that the cantankerous effectually secured its own application.
Hodge, for instance, believed that the limited efficacy of the cantankerous is rooted in the Covenant of Redemption. According to Hodge, Christ in eternity past became the federal head of His chosen people. Or in the words of Hodge:
The Bible teaches, (1.) That a certain portion of the man race was given to Christ. (2.) That they were given to Him before the foundation of the globe. (three.) That all thus given to Him will certainly come up to Him and be saved. (4.) That this union, and so far as it was from eternity, is not a wedlock of nature, nor by religion, nor past indwelling of the Holy Spirit, it was a federal union. (5.) That Christ, therefore, was a federal caput and representative of those given to Him.20
"Information technology follows," Hodge claimed: "from the nature of the covenant of redemption, equally presented in the Bible, that Christ did not dice every bit for all flesh, but that He gave Himself for His people and for their redemption."21 Because of the elect's federal wedlock with Christ, co-ordinate to Hodge, "What He did and suffered in their place, or equally their representative, they in the eye of the police, did and suffered."22 "He was therefore the federal head," according to Hodge, "non of the homo race, simply of those given to Him past the Father. And therefore, His work, so far every bit its main design is concerned, was for them lonely. Whatever reference it had to others was subordinate and incidental."23
Therefore, Christ's legal representation of His called people in the eternal covenant of redemption is the reason the death of Christ is efficacious for simply the elect—securing saving organized religion for them and for them alone. This is because when Christ died, those who were in legal union with Him died with Him. Considering Christ and His people were considered one in the eyes of God, their sins (in a qualitative sense) were imputed to Christ as He bore the wrath they deserved on the tree.
Most other 5-point Calvinists believe that the atonement secured its own application by the special intention or blueprint of God. That is, God acquired the cross to be inherently efficacious because that is how He designed or intended for the cross to operate.
But, regardless of what causes the cross to secure its own application, disproving Owen'due south reason for cocky-efficacy does not disprove the other possible reasons for the atonement'south self-application. And, if the cross secured its ain application, so the extent of its efficacy must be limited to the elect and to the elect alone.
A Misunderstanding of the Gift of Faith
6th, Allen claims that religion was not procured by the death of Christ. In his critique of John Piper's affiliate in From Heaven He Came and Sought Her, Allen states:
Piper cannot demonstrate anywhere from Scripture the notion that faith is something 'purchased' for the elect at the cantankerous. Such linguistic communication finds no support in the NT. Where Owen and Piper err is in thinking that religion as a gift is equivalent to faith every bit a purchase. At that place is no causal link between the decease of Christ and subjective faith.24
All the same, those property to express amende exercise not build the case for limited efficacy on a proof text. Rather, as Calvinists, they understand that saving religion is connected with the new nature. Saving organized religion is non a gift that comes by itself. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing comes by the Word of God, and this by spiritual illumination that is connected with a saving work within the heart of human. In other words, without the Spirit's saving piece of work within man, there is no saving organized religion.
And, though the Bible does not directly say religion was procured past the death of Christ, information technology does teach that the new nature was procured by the death of Christ. For Christ "gave Himself for usa to redeem the states from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds" (Titus 2:fourteen). And it is said that Christ died that "he might sanctify the people with his ain blood" (Hebrews thirteen:12). These, and other such verses, teach that Christ'southward decease did more than make men savable.
At that place is a "causal link" betwixt faith and the amende because there is a "causal link" between the expiry of Christ and the new nature and a "causal link" between the new nature and saving faith. For the elect, the decease of Christ around secured and brought about the new nature. And, this is the reason the atonement secured saving faith, and thus the reason the atonement is limited in the extent of its saving efficacy.
Disjoining Intent, Extent, and Application
Seventh, Allen rightly distinguishes between intent and extent, only wrongly denies there is a necessary connection between them. He charges five-point Calvinists with conflating (one) intent, (2) extent, and (3) application together. "High Calvinists," according to Allen, "presume that the intent to apply and the extent are and must exist coextensive."25
For instance, in his introduction, Allen claims that Calvinists, such as A. A. Hodge and Louis Berkhof, confused intent with extent. According to Allen, the question of the extent of the atonement is non the same as request the question of the intent or the question of the application of the amende:
It is surprising how often those on both sides of the theological contend don't seem to understand the bodily state of the question. For example, A. A. Hodge stated: "The question does truly and but relate to the pattern of the Father and of the Son in respect to the persons for whose benefit the Atonement was made." But stating the question in this fashion fails to reckon with the distinction between the intent and extent of the atonement.
Louis Berkhof saw the question to be "Did the Father in sending Christ, and did Christ coming into the world, to make amende for sin, do this with the design or for the purpose of saving simply the elect or all men? That is the question, and that just is the question." Again, Berkhof fails to distinguish between views on the intent of the atonement and the actual issue of its extent.26
Even if there were a special intent for the elect, co-ordinate to Allen, what does this accept to do with the extent of the amende. Just because God may have had a special intent to save the elect, this, argues Allen, does not dominion out that the atonement's universal (extrinsic) sufficiency for all. For Allen, intent is asking the question of application, while extent is request the question of sufficiency.
Intent = Efficacy/Application
Extent = Sufficiency
So, according to Allen, the question of (1.) intent is connected to the question of (iii.) application, but not continued with the question of (2.) extent.
Notwithstanding, Hodge and Berkhof were not wrong in connecting intent with extent. Although Calvinists believe there is a distinction between intent, extent, and application, it is non inconsistent for them to believe that there is a necessary connection between them. For instance, it is the special (ane.) intent (or design) of the atonement that causes it to secure its ain application, and the atonement's self-application necessitates that the (2.) extent of its efficacy (not sufficiency) is limited to the elect, and the limited extent of its efficacy is the reason the atonement is (3.) applied to only the elect. So, at least for five-point Calvinists, it is impossible for in that location to exist one (intent, extent, or awarding) without the other two.
Conclusion
Allen is extremely helpful in showing the complexities of the extent of the atonement inside the Reformed and Baptist traditions. Yet, because he failed to nuance the two dimensions of the extent of the amende (the extent of efficacy and the extent of sufficiency), the volume is a little misleading. I don't believe he accomplished his objective in disproving express atonement by building a strong case for universal sufficiency. I agree that Calvin, Edwards, Boston, Fuller, Hodge, and many other Calvinists believed that the death of Christ has sufficiently opened the door of conservancy for anybody, and that this universal (extrinsic) sufficiency makes the gospel a sincere and warranted offer to all. Nonetheless, even if Calvin, Edwards, Boston, Fuller, and Hodge were right, this in no way cancels out the express intent and the limited extent of the atonement's inherent efficacy. To disprove limited atonement, Allen has to prove that the atonement did not effectually purchase, redeem, and purify a particular people for God. Which I believe Allen failed to do.
Much more could be said about both the strengths and weaknesses of this book. Having such a vast amount of research at my fingertips, I tin see myself using it consistently as a handy reference tool. And regardless of whether nosotros agree or disagree with Allen's critical conclusions, I believe we will all agree that he has written a valuable book.
NOTES:
1 Calvin, Sermons on Isaiah 53, T.H.L. Parker (London: Clarke, 1956), 141. Italics added.
2 I would argue for John Calvin also.
iii Thomas Boston, "Christ Saviour of the World" in The Complete Works of Thomas Boston (Stoke-on-Trent, Uk: Tentmaker, 2002) 6:299.
4 Jonathan Edwards, The Liberty of the Will (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1996), 328–329.
5 Jonathan Edwards, in Works of Jonathan Edwards Online, 73 vols., ed. H.S. Stout (Jonathan Edwards Centre, Yale University, 2008), 13:212.
6 Ibid., 547.
7 Ibid., 623, italics is his.
eight Ibid., 31.
nine The Extent of the Atonement, xxi.
10 Ibid., 775. Italics mine.
11 Ibid., 623.
12 Ibid., 27.
13 Ibid., 667.
14 Ibid., 27.
15 The Sentences, Book 3: On the Incarnation of the Word, trans. Giulio Silano (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2008), 86 (3.twenty.five).
xvi Owen argued that Christ either suffered for (ane.) all of the sins of some people, or (2.) all of the sins of all people, or (iii.) some of the sins of all people.
17 See Allen, The Extent of the Atonement, 627–629.
18 Decease of Death in the Expiry of Christ, 157–158.
19 Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Thousand Rapides: Eerdmans, 1981), ii:544–545.
20 Ibid., ii:551.
21 Ibid., ii:547.
22 Ibid., ii:551.
23 Ibid.
24 The Extent of the Amende, 758.
25 Ibid., 267.
26 Ibid., xxiii., Italics his.
Source: https://founders.org/reviews/the-extent-of-the-atonement/
0 Response to "Review of David Allens Book on the Atonement"
Post a Comment