The doctrine of "Limited atonement" states that Jesus Christ's substitutionary atonement on the cross is limited to those who are elect.
Several leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention recently held a conference called The John 3:16 conference aimed at debunking Calvinism. The topic that has gotten the most attention is "Limited Atonement" presented by Dr. David Allen, dean of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary's School of Theology. The reason for so much attention on his particular session is his criticism of many leaders in the reformed arena, but I want to deal with his rejection of the doctrine of Limited Atonement.
First I am going to make a statement that is going to have many blowing smoke out of their ears, but please continue reading before you do any severe damage to nearby objects, pets or children. Ok? Are you ready? Here goes: If you do not believe in Limited Atonement you are not a Christian. Now take a few relaxing breaths , calm down and let me explain.
The word "elect" is used in scripture to mean those that have been, are or will be saved.
Mathew 24:31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
Romans 8:33 Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies.
Titus 1:1 Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the sake of the faith of God's elect and their knowledge of the truth, which accords with godliness,
If I counted correctly their are 14 places in the New Testament that refer to those that are saved as "elect". So we can legitimately substitute the word "saved" for the word "elect" and my opening sentence would have read like this-
The doctrine of "Limited atonement" states that Jesus Christ's substitutionary atonement on the cross is limited to those who are saved.
To argue against "Limited Atonement" is to argue for (1) universalism or (2) that Christ's blood was not sufficient because He paid the price for people who are in hell.
Either position is heretical and cannot be held by a true Christian.
I am not arguing that Dr. Allen is not a Christian, only that his biases are not allowing Him to view the subject clearly.
The doctrine of Limited Atonement as well as the other doctrines of Grace are foreign to most Christians and are not clearly understood.
Having one sided conferences condemning another groups views will only divide the Southern Baptist Convention. Several leaders in the Calvinist movement have called for a debate on the doctrines of Grace and I challenge Dr. Allen and the other participants in the John 3:16 conference to accept. An open discussion presenting both views clearly, honestly and with respect is the only way to insure the denomination is not pulled apart by this controversy.
Related links:
An overview by Timmy Brister
Challies.com reports on Dr David Allens message
3 comments:
I read the 3:16 article you posted from Baptist Press, and I didn't see the attacks that you said were there. Was something else missing? I am familiar with Steve Lemke and knew Ken Keathley - he was my Systematic Theology professor at NOBTS - and I've never seen them attack anyone. Especially, I've seen Keathley make someone prove logic and ask hard questions, but never attack.
What would have been nice would have been if Vines had've invited people of another opinion.
I am with you, it is hard for me to see how the John 3:16 Conference promoted fellowship across theological lines, it would seem that the conference simply furthered the already present divisiveness.
Rebelnerdboy,
The Baptist Press Article did not contain the negative comment made at the conference. I included the link to give a fair picture of what the conference was. I should have included more links to give a clearer picture of what I am talking about. I will edit the post and insert the links at the bottom.
Post a Comment