I found this interesting at SBC Today. The following is my response.
I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.
(Hmm wonder why he doesn’t pray for all the world, if indeed he died for them all? Wow, Jesus believed in a limited atonement! I guess he is historically irrelevant. Notice world does not mean the whole world. It means instead a portion, and that the portion called was everyone in the world called, but not the whole, was called.)
Hebrews (could be Luke, probably Paul, who cares) says-
But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.
(Hmmm, wonder why Allen uses an inferior rendering from a translation that says everyone is every man? Slight of hand? Shouldn’t we stick with the text and exegete it and not put our theology first? Why does Allen use hasty appeals to broad generalizations and appeals to authority to preface his argument, then?)
Every man? Well it isn’t. The word is everyone, but more accurately means each class or kind? The word is not anthropos or hapas, but pas, and refers to selected individual persons or things, unique, discrete and complete portion, but rarely the entirety. As in John 3:16, pas, cannot mean all, obviously, where it clearly means only the believing ones, setting it in opposition to John 3:18. And, this use here in Hebrews is connected, in context, to Hebrews 2:13. And, is in concert with John, cf. Genesis 24, where God through Abraham limits the bride of the Seed, to an elected one, rejecting the nations all around. It is the Seed and his children, and no others who are co-heirs of the household of faith, marked out by the HS before they are called. Limited, such that it is only out of His own family. (Note how our anothen gennao, is from above, not from below. It is the Spirit which conceives us above by the will of God, John 1:12 and 13, that determines who will receive it, not the will of man below.) Amazing revelation for those with eyes to see.
A good treatment of what Calvin taught was done by Helm. Dr. James White does a great job of demolishing Dr. Waite’s Allenesque perversions of Calvin’s work. Why would someone go to such great extent to disprove Calvin’s philosophy of limited atonement, as Dr. Waite did, if he didn’t teach it? Search around James White’s materials on Calvin and limited atonement. You’ll find “scholarly” articles…
Each of the quotes of Calvin used by Allen is out of context just as selected Scripture is taken out of context, and filled with meaning that suits his tradition and it is expected that listeners are shallow enough to swallow the tripe whole as if it is not a perversion of truth. Such disingenuous anti-intellectualism, braggadocio and buffoonery, is tailored dress for the majority SBC party. Makes one wonder just who wrote it? Does Allen follow Caner?
Now… some of these men are not telling the truth. I know at least one that is.
The big fat rabbit is being pulled out of the hat by a prestidigitator, no doubt.
The point of Debbie’s comment, Gordon, is that Allen also takes Spurgeon out of the context of all his teaching, and in the same corrupt way that he handled Calvin. He doesn’t stop there, but mishandles the Word of God. He is even willing to make Jesus a liar.
Why should we trust anything that he has to say? It really does matter what Scripture says. Everywhere!
I, like Debbie, did not come to know the DofG via any of the reformers. It was when I followed the standard SBC semi-Pelagianism to its logical conclusion and found myself teaching my daughter open theism. The result in denying the middle petal. And, when I started asking questions I found that I had been lied to. The alternative was on the shelves of my pastor’s library, but he wasn’t truthful, and hid them from sight. And, hid the knowledge of the history of the SBC, which was required to be taught by our constitution, from the congregation. Typical authoritarian SBCism, eh? When I found out by reading Southern Baptists and the Doctrine of Election by Robert B. Selph that my pastor had on his shelf, being a required reading at Southeastern, I became angry, and righteously so. Because, men like my pastor, and Allen, men who know better, are willing to deceive to protect their pet doctrines and their jobs.
I have thoroughly read Calvin’s institutes, and many portions of his commentaries. I have cross referenced many quotes used in attempts to discredit his view of limited atonement. Tony Byrne is a fine scholar, with whom I disagree and do not get along. His studies are in stark contrast to the clear statements by Helm. Where Helm shows, contrary to Allen and Byrne, that Calvin explicitly believed in a limited atonement, consistently. Which means, the statements Calvin made concerning universality must be conditioned upon from the view of the first. Calvin, like the Scripture, uses terms that may or may not have universal application. He uses world, mankind, human species, all, everyone, in their normal literal nuances. This is quite different than the presumptive application that Allen makes. Allen takes his method of hermeneutics and applies them to Calvin, rather than letting Calvin’s speak for Calvin. Allen does not exegete, he eisogetes.