‘Traditional’ Southern Baptist David L. Allen has written extensively on the atonement.[1] Allen demonstrates the importance of carefully distinguishing between the intent, extent, and application of Christ’s sacrificial, substitutionary death on the cross.
Allen takes the position of a universal/unlimited scope of the atonement with particular/limited application: the number for whom Christ procured salvation via his death and the actual salvation of persons are not necessarily co-extensive (a proposition which is anathema to high Calvinists). Universalism, the doctrine that all persons without exception will eventually be saved (via ante- or post-mortem acceptance and meeting the conditions of the gospel proclamation), is thereby denied.
In contrast with strict/high Calvinists, Arminians, non-Calvinists, and moderate (i.e. Amyraldian, four-point) Calvinists alike affirm that the extent of the atonement encompasses the whole of humankind (universal/unlimited atonement). Without equivocation, then, according to this view, it may be said that Jesus Christ has died for all.
* Unless otherwise indicated, I do not earn commissions (or favours, for that matter) for the purchase of books recommended or referenced on this website. For further information, see my web page, ‘A Word on The Neo-Remonstrance Blog’.
Latest revisions: converted a portion of par. 1 to n. 1; converted a portion of par. 3 to n. 2; altered the phrase ‘the number for whom Christ died’ to ‘the number for whom Christ procured salvation via his death’ in par. 1 (8 Sept. 2019); made technical alterations in nn. 1 and 2; added ‘inclusive of’ to par. 2 (28 Jul. 2021); slightly modified n. 2 (1 Aug. 2021); added italics in a few places, added to and expanded/revised text in a few places (4 Oct. 2021); added a hyphen to one term in par. 1 (29 Oct. 2021); assorted emendations made (2 Feb. 2022); added a paragraph break (11 Aug. 2022); added two citations to n. 1 (6 Jan. 2023).
In contrast with strict/high Calvinists, Arminians, non-Calvinists, and moderate (i.e. Amyraldian, four-point) Calvinists alike affirm that the extent of the atonement encompasses the whole of humankind (universal/unlimited atonement). Without equivocation, then, according to this view, it may be said that Jesus Christ has died for all.
Differences amongst Arminians and Amyraldians emerge, however, when the intent of the atonement is taken under consideration.
As regards the application of the atonement, for those who have heard the proclamation of the good news, strict Calvinists and non-Calvinists agree that the benefits of Christ’s atonement are applied exclusively to those who respond in faith. High Calvinists are unique in their insistence that Christ did not die in a salvational sense for the non-elect (or ‘reprobate’); rather, they believe that the scope of the atonement is restricted to a portion of humankind, not humankind as a whole (particular/limited atonement).
As regards the significance of the extent of the atonement, I personally am of the opinion that the query ‘For whom did Christ die?’ is worthy of serious consideration and should not be relegated to the heap of impractical, conjectural footnotes of theology (of which there surely are more than a few).[2]
As regards the significance of the extent of the atonement, I personally am of the opinion that the query ‘For whom did Christ die?’ is worthy of serious consideration and should not be relegated to the heap of impractical, conjectural footnotes of theology (of which there surely are more than a few).[2]
Notes
1. See David L. Allen, ‘The Atonement: Limited or Universal?’, in idem and Steve W. Lemke (eds), Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-point Calvinism (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2010), pp. 61–108; David L. Allen, The Extent of the Atonement: A Historical and Critical Review (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2016); idem, ‘Commentary on Article 3: The Atonement of Christ’, in David L. Allen, Eric Hankins, and Adam Hardwood (eds), Anyone Can Be Saved: A Defense of “Traditional” Southern Baptist Soteriology (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2016), pp. 55–65; David L. Allen, The Atonement: A Biblical, Theological, and Historical Study of the Cross of Christ (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2019); and, most recently, idem, ‘A Critique of Limited Atonement’, in David. L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke (eds), Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2022), pp. 71–127.*
2. See the final chapter, ‘Why Belief in Unlimited Atonement Matters’, in Allen, The Extent of the Atonement, pp. 765–91, for reasons explaining why this is so.
Copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2019, 2021, 2022, 2023. All rights reserved.
Copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2019, 2021, 2022, 2023. All rights reserved.
Addendum (6 Jan. 2023). For blog articles written by the forenamed author wherein issues relating to Calvinistic soteriology are addressed, see the link to the following web page:
* Unless otherwise indicated, I do not earn commissions (or favours, for that matter) for the purchase of books recommended or referenced on this website. For further information, see my web page, ‘A Word on The Neo-Remonstrance Blog’.
Latest revisions: converted a portion of par. 1 to n. 1; converted a portion of par. 3 to n. 2; altered the phrase ‘the number for whom Christ died’ to ‘the number for whom Christ procured salvation via his death’ in par. 1 (8 Sept. 2019); made technical alterations in nn. 1 and 2; added ‘inclusive of’ to par. 2 (28 Jul. 2021); slightly modified n. 2 (1 Aug. 2021); added italics in a few places, added to and expanded/revised text in a few places (4 Oct. 2021); added a hyphen to one term in par. 1 (29 Oct. 2021); assorted emendations made (2 Feb. 2022); added a paragraph break (11 Aug. 2022); added two citations to n. 1 (6 Jan. 2023).
