Adam Clarke on the Universality of the Atonement

        He died for every human soul, for all who are partakers of the same nature which he has assumed; the merit and benefits of his death must necessarily extend to all mankind, because he has assumed that nature which is common to all. Nor could the merit of his death be limited to any particular part, nation, tribe, or individuals of the vast human family. It is not the nature of a particular nation, tribe, family, or individual, which he has assumed, but the nature of the whole human race; and “God has made of one blood all the nations, for to dwell on all the face of the earth,”[1] that all those might be redeemed with “one blood;” for he is the kinsman of the whole. The merit of his death must, therefore, extend to every man, unless we can find individuals or families that have not sprung from that stock of which he became incarnated. His death must be infinitely meritorious, and extend in its benefits to all who are partakers of the same nature, because he was God manifested in the flesh; and to contract or limit that merit, that it should apply only to a few, or even to any multitudes short of the whole human race, is one of those things which is impossible to God himself, because it involves a moral contradiction. He could no more limit the merit of that death, than he could limit his own eternity, or contract that love which induced him to undertake the redemption of a lost world.
        If the many, that is, all mankind, have died through the offence of one; certainly, the gift by grace, which abounds unto the many, by Christ Jesus, must have reference to every human being.[2] If the consequences of Christ’s incarnation and death extend only to a few, or a select number of mankind, which, though they may be considered many in themselves, are few in comparison of the whole human race, then the consequences of Adam’s sin have extended only to a few, or to the same select number: and if only many and not all have fallen, only that many had need of a Redeemer. For it is most evident that the same persons are referred to in both clauses of the verse. If the apostle had believed that the benefits of the death of Christ had extended only to a select number of mankind, he never could have used the language he has done here; though, in the first clause, he might have said, without any qualification of the term, “Through the offence of one, many are dead;” in the second clause, to be consistent with the doctrine of particular redemption,[3] he must have said, “The grace of God, and the gift by grace, hath abounded unto some. As, by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation; so, by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon some to justification. As, by one man’s disobedience, many were made sinners; so, by the obedience of one, shall some be made righteous.[4] As in Adam all die; so in Christ shall some be made alive.”[5] But neither the doctrine nor the thing ever entered the soul of this divinely inspired man.[6]

Adam Clarke, Christian Theology (repr., Salem, OH: Convention Book Store, 1967), pp. 117–8, emphases in original

Notes

        1. Acts 17.26.
        2. See Romans 5.17–19.
        3. The doctrine of particular redemption is sometimes referred to as limited atonement, particular atonement, or definite atonement. The essence of the teaching is that Christ died with the intention of securing spiritual and eschatological salvation for a portion of humankind, not the whole. According to this view, those for whom Christ died salvationally will inevitably become partakers of salvation; those for whom he did not, will not.
        4. Contra Romans 5.17–19, Berean Literal Bible (BLB): ‘For if, by the trespass of the one, death reigned through the one, how much more will those receiving the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ! So then, just as through one trespass, it is unto condemnation to all men, so also through one act of righteousness it is unto justification of life to all men. For as indeed through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the One, the many will be made righteous.’
        5. Contra 1 Corinthians 15.22 (BLB): ‘For as indeed in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.’
        6. Namely Paul the apostle.  —J. D. Gallé

Notes copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2019. All rights reserved.

Thomas Fretwell’s Fallacies on Evangelical Annihilationism

J. D. Gallé | Wednesday, 8 May 2019

        Thomas Fretwell, in an article published on Creation Ministries International’s website entitled ‘Is Christianity Unbelievable? Review of a Book by Influential UK Christian Radio Show Host’ (9 Apr. 2019), under the subheading ‘Eternal punishment?’, writes:

One other area where the author [Justin Brierley] says his views have been revised is his understanding of hell. Departing from the traditional view of hell as an eternal reality after death[,] Brierley explains that his present understanding “is one that theologians call ‘annihilationism’” (p. 184)—a view that basically says hell is the end of existence for the unsaved. Although he states that “there are a growing number of significant Christian leaders” who hold this view, it is a frank denial of the plain teaching of the New Testament, not least the Lord Jesus Himself ([…]). Consequently, it is still considered to be an unorthodox view in today’s Church, held only by a minority of professing evangelical leaders.[1, 2]

        There are several problems with Fretwell’s assertions and characterisations of the doctrine of annihilationism. Firstly, evangelicals who hold to the teaching of the final annihilation of the unrighteous no more deny the ‘eternal reality’ of eschatological punishment than do advocates of the conventional view of everlasting, conscious torture. Adherents of both positions maintain the everlasting, permanent, and irreversible nature of the divine verdict to be passed upon the wicked on Judgement Day.
        Secondly, it is true that evangelical proponents of annihilationism believe that the future punishment of those who are not saved will reach its climax in the termination of their existence. That is not to say, however, that the unrighteous will not suffer mentally and/or physically (in their resurrected bodies) for a period of time prior to being finally exterminated. They will certainly be conscious on the day of judgement when they are held to account for their lives and are banished from the presence of the Lord Jesus, the holy angels, and his people, into age-lasting punishment (see Matt. 7.21–23; 25.41, 46).

        Thirdly, regarding the charge that annihilationism is a ‘frank denial of the plain teaching of the New Testament, not least the Lord Jesus Himself’, I beg to differ. I would invite Fretwell (and others of his opinion), if he has not already, to carefully read Edward Fudge’s monumental work, The Fire That Consumes (2011).[3] A strong biblical case for the final extinction of the wicked has already been made. It is therefore incumbent upon advocates of the conventional view of interminable torment to counter annihilationists’ actual scriptural and theological arguments.
        Fourthly, I must confess that I fail to appreciate the significance of the observation that, at present, annihilationism is a minority position within the realm of evangelicalism. This is a form of the argumentum ad populum (argument to the people) to which Fretwell is appealing. Ironically, it is precisely this form of argumentation that young-earth creationist organisations such as Creation Ministries International (rightly) frown upon when employed by opposing voices to dismiss their cosmological stance. Protestants/evangelicals who maintain a sola or prima scriptura hermeneutical view need not baulk at adopting, or considering the adoption of, the doctrine of annihilationism because of the paucity of its proponents. As always, with regard to faith and practice, scripture must be the final authority.

Notes

        1. Fretwell’s article may be read in its entirety at <https://creation.com/unbelievable>.
        2. The book under review by Fretwell is Justin Brierley’s Unbelievable? Why, after Ten Years of Talking with Atheists, I'm Still a Christian (London, UK: SPCK, 2017).
        3. Edward William Fudge, The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, 3rd edn (Cambridge, UK: Lutterworth Press, 2012 / Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2011).

Original content copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2019, 2021, 2022. All rights reserved.


Latest revisions: corrected a misplaced apostrophe in par. 5 (22 Sept. 2019); emended ‘heading’ to ‘subheading’ in par. 1 (21 Oct. 2021); emended scriptural abbreviation (10 Nov. 2021); altered ‘scarcity’ to ‘paucity’ in last paragraph (11 Oct. 2022).

David L. Allen on the Significance of the Scope of the Atonement and Properly Differentiating the Aspects of Christ’s Redemptive Work: the Intent, Extent, and Application Thereof

J. D. Gallé | Sunday, 5 May 2019

        ‘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.

        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]

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, 2026. 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:

• https://drdavidlallen.com/category/calvinism/
  

* 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); slightly modified title of article (11 Jan. 2026).

The Principal Point of Contention between Arminian and Calvinistic Soteriologies

J. D. Gallé | Friday, 5 April 2019

        The key difference between Arminian/non-Calvinistic and Calvinistic soteriologies is whether salvation is conditional in nature. Concerning God’s interactions or dealings with humankind, in high Calvinistic theology there is only the appearance of conditionality.
        It is true that Calvinists agree with Arminians that all people without exception are to be urged to repent and believe in the good news of Jesus Christ for salvation. However, in strict Calvinistic theology, the very ‘conditions’ for attaining deliverance from the future wrath, namely repentance and faith, are (1) unconditionally and exclusively bestowed on those individuals whom God has pre-chosen for salvation, and (2) withheld from the rest of humankind. It is impossible, therefore, that the former group will fail to be saved (i.e. the elect), and impossible that the latter group will fail to be lost (i.e. the reprobate, non-elect).
        Such thought is at utter variance with Arminian theology, which maintains that God has not determined which specific individuals will positively respond to the grace of God proffered through the glad tidings of salvation in Jesus Christ. Consequently, any particular human being’s failure to obey the gospel cannot find its origin in an eternal, unconditional divine decree of reprobation.

Copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2019, 2022. All rights reserved.

Latest revision(s): modified punctuation in one place (2 Feb. 2022).

Salvational Security: a Remonstrant’s Ruminations on John 10.27–30

J. D. Gallé | Wednesday, 13 March 2019

v. 27    “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.

 
v. 28    “And I give them eternal life, and never shall they perish to the age, and never will anyone seize them out of My hand.

v. 29    “My Father who has given them to Me is greater than all, and no one is able to seize them out of the Father’s hand.

v. 30    “I and the Father are one.” 

(John 10.27–30, Berean Literal Bible[1])

        Believers, here identified in John’s Gospel as Christ’s sheep, are those persons hearing and following the Good Shepherd, Jesus Christ, God’s only-begotten Son. The sheep of Christ are promised eschatological salvation and spiritual pasture (vv. 9, 10b). He is the virtuous shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep (vv. 11, 15, 17–18).

        Conversely, the spiritually blind leaders of the day, namely the Pharisees,[2] are likened by Jesus to thieves and robbers who kill and destroy (vv. 1, 8, 10a); strangers whom the sheep will not listen to or follow (vv. 5, 8b); and cowardly hirelings who flee at the sight of a wolf, leaving the sheep entrusted to their care to fend for themselves (vv. 12–13).
        The Father and the Son, unified in the divine essence, are unified also in their purpose to guard believers. Those who are hearing and following Jesus Christ are safe in their hands. They cannot and will not be captured or stolen away by any external person or force: human or angelic, visible or invisible, natural or supernatural.
        But seeing, however, as spiritual safety is only to be found under the watchful care of the Good Shepherd, if one were to cease hearing and following Christ, s/he would no longer be a sheep belonging to him, and thus forfeit all of the benefits associated with being in a positive relationship with him.
        The possibility of an individual who had once been united to Christ subsequently breaching that union is not left unconsidered in the Gospel of John. Employing horticultural imagery, the Lord himself explicitly states, ‘“If anyone does not remain in me, he is thrown aside like a branch and he withers. They gather them, throw them into the fire, and they are burned”’ (15.6, CSB[3]).

Conclusion

        The good news is that the hearers and followers of Jesus are his sheep, and they will assuredly never perish whilst in his hand. The danger is that we lose Christ, not Christ lose us. We need not distrust God, but ourselves. Salvational security is not to be discovered in an unknowable, hidden divine decree of unconditional election or the incapacitation of believers’ wills to forsake Christ and reclaim the world.[4] Rather, security of salvation rests ultimately upon God’s promise of redemption in Christ Jesus: ‘“Everyone believing on Him will not be put to shame”’ (Rom. 10.11).

Notes

        1. Unless otherwise noted, all scriptural references in this article are taken from the Berean Literal Bible (2016). (This translation may be accessed by utilising the following link: <https://literalbible.com>.)
        2. See John 9, especially verse 40. John 10 contains a discourse following the religious leaders’ denunciation and casting out of the synagogue a man who had been born visually impaired but miraculously granted sight by the Lord Jesus. This unjust repudiation of the (formerly) blind man from fellowship in the synagogue was a result of the religious leaders’ rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus of Nazareth (see Jn 9.22).
        3. Christian Standard Bible (2017).

        4. Contra Calvinistic theology, which denies the resistibility of divine grace in the conversion of the elect from conception (initial salvation) to completion (final salvation).

Copyright © J. D. Gallé, 2019, 2021, 2022. All rights reserved.

Latest revisions: minor grammatical correction made in par. 3 (8 May 2021); altered conjunction in n. 2 (19 Oct. 2021); slightly emended n. 2 (26 Dec. 2021); added one comma in par. 1; slightly modified par. 2 and n. 2; added n. 4; altered punctuation in one place in par. 6; modified one phrase in par. 6 (12 Feb. 2022); modified the formatting for opening scriputral citation (18 Sept. 2022).

John C. Lennox on High Calvinism’s Misconstrual of the Extent of the Atonement

        It is a serious matter to deny the plain teaching of Scripture in the interests of maintaining a theological paradigm, or to try to get round it by special pleading that Christ’s death brings some kind of non-specific temporal benefit to all, or that God has different kinds of love for the elect and non-elect. To say to people, as some do, that Christ died for them in some vague unexplained sense, rather than telling them that Christ died for their sins and that they may be saved by trusting him, is not only insulting to the intelligence, it is insulting to the message of the cross.

John C. Lennox, Determined to Believe? The Sovereignty of God, Freedom, Faith, and Human Responsibility (Oxford, UK: Monarch Books, 2017 / Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2018), pp. 179–80

Copyright © John C. Lennox, 2017. All rights reserved.

In order to purchase a copy of Lennox’s Determined to Believe? (2017),* see the links to the following websites:

• Monarch Books (Lion Hudson)
  
• Zondervan (HarperCollins Christian Publishing)
  
• Christianbook
• Barnes & Noble
• Books-A-Million (BAM!)
  
• Amazon

* 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’.

Find Him

The Lord calls us to diligently seek him. For there is no greater object to seek, and he loves to be found.

F. Leroy Forlines on Faith as a Gift of God

        Faith is not some substance that exists outside of us that is to be given to us. It is an experience that must take place within us. That is the only way we can have faith. Faith is a gift in the sense that God gives to us the aid that is necessary, without which we could not exercise faith. It is not a gift in the sense that it is not an exercise of our own personality.

F. Leroy Forlines, Classical Arminianism: A Theology of Salvation, ed. J. Matthew Pinson (Nashville, TN: Randall House, 2011), p. 258

Copyright © F. Leroy Forlines, 2011. All rights reserved.

In order to purchase Forlines’ Classical Arminianism (2011),* see the links to the following websites:

• Randall House Publications
• Christianbook
• Barnes & Noble
• Books-A-Million (BAM!)
  
• Amazon

Addendum (24 Sept. 2022).  Franklin Leroy Forlines (1926–2020) died on Tuesday, 15 December 2020, aged ninety-four.

• Helwys Society Forum
• Tribute Archive (obituary)

* 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’.