The Particular Baptist Podcast: A Brief Reply to a Review

There’s a certain delight and trepidation to having one of your books reviewed, especially when those examining it fundamentally disagree with the doctrine in question. The spark of steel and the clang of metal gets the blood flowing. Ishmael might find himself “growing grim about the mouth” and in need of finding open water, I find the chance to engage brethren in a theological sparring match rather thrilling; not for argument sake, mind you, but because it creates an environment where ideas can square off—go toe to toe—and those involved can genuinely grow and sharpen their thinking as the ideas clash in the arena of theological discourse.

I count that a blessing.

In this vein, I want to extend my hearty appreciation to the men over at the Particular Baptist Podcast for willingly and thoughtfully engaging my latest book “A Boisterously Reformed Polemic Against Limited Atonement.” They were sober-minded, prepared, and willing to grant me the benefit of the doubt on certain occasions (when they were uncertain what I meant or was articulating at times). For that I am thankful.

As to be expected, there are areas where I would love to push back, and there are areas where they missed the import of an argument. In the former instance, it would be petty to walk through the video and note my disagreement at every point, and in the latter instance, it would be cumbersome and not a little time consuming to highlight where they misunderstood the argument (or just didn’t engage it adequately) and explain how they missed it and then respond. All of this is just to say that some of these things would need to be explored “face to face” to correct misunderstandings or errors in real time.

I would be remiss, of course, if I didn’t highlight a few things. And so if you’ll permit me a moment to enumerate some criticisms, and even frustrations, I’ll limit myself to a handful of examples.

—-

It was said that my view falls outside the bounds of Presbyterian standards since the Westminster (as per his assertion) teaches that Christ died only for the sins of the elect. While there has been some debate whether or not the Confession allowed for Hypothetical Universalists to sign on in good faith (by purposely framing the language with enough flexibility to accommodate said differences), I think the evidence falls fairly strongly on the side of permitting my view. If that is the case, then it would be quite wrong to state, as he did, that my view contradicts the Confession. I cited an extended list of relevant literature arguing for, and against, in footnote 136 and 137. I think it would have behooved them to explain why they think my view doesn’t fall within the bounds, given how impetration and application are likely in view in those contested sections of the Confession (meaning that those sections have in mind the effectual side of the equation for the elect alone).

I would point readers to two extremely helpful articles in this regard:

Shades of Opinion: Particular Redemption at the Westminster Assembly, Lee Gatiss

Confessional Orthodoxy and Hypothetical Universalism: Another Look at the Westminster Confession of Faith, Michael Lynch

If the men at the Particular Baptist Podcast would interact with those, I think it would not only prove fruitful, but illuminating, as I am not sure they are aware of the internal debates and how that manifested itself in the language of the Confession (and not just the minutes!).

Moving beyond Westminster, no one can reasonably assert that Dort wasn’t clearly framed to allow both Highs and Moderates to sign on in good faith. In the end, the three forms of unity are clear. Classical Calvinism, along with Hypothetical Universalism, fall squarely within traditional Reformed thought.

As for the London Baptist Confession, I can’t speak with any degree of intelligence, since I am not aware of how it may differ. So they could well be correct. Though I would add that apparently Paul Hobson signed onto the 1644 LBC. He rather clearly taught that Christ died for every man. Did the LBC tighten in the 1689 version? Perhaps so. The language does shift slightly. I just don’t know if it is incidental or consequential in nature.

—-

Owen’s citations of historical examples supposedly advocating limited atonement leaves a lot to be desired. Mention was made of Ambrose and Prosper and Polycarp’s Martyrdom by the men, but they fell into the tired repetition of not only reading too much into certain texts, but not highlighting other texts that clearly teach universal satisfaction. Others could be added, but here are a few:

Ambrose

Propser

Similarly, it is fascinating how one of the men, after quoting Polycarp’s Martyrdom, inserted the word “alone” to what was supposedly communicated by the apostolic father. Let it be stressed that any classical Calvinist worth his salt could say exactly what was said in that early writing. Christ did die for the whole world of those who are saved. Since we maintain an effectual component to Christ’s work whereby the elect will be infallibly saved by virtue of the covenant of redemption (if you want to use that language), it poses no problem. So the quote doesn’t establish limited atonement.

Now to be fair, it might serve as a interpretive guide to the use of the term world, as they mention, but the validity of that parallel will hinge upon other factors.

—-

Since I devoted quite a bit of energy explicating the grounding problem, hitting it from different angles (sufficiency, the thankfulness problem, the grounding of an offer problem, the rejection problem), they too spent a fair bit of time seeking to answer my concerns. This would be an area where it would be helpful to discuss the matter in person, since it requires quick corrections and quick back-and-forths. Here I am thinking of the gentleman’s four elements to an offer, his game show example, etc.

To be candid, many of their retorts either missed the mark, or they misapprehended the nature of the arguments against a merely intrinsic view of Christ’s sufficiency (the example of the rich man really stands out, as does the 1:20:00ish mark with the demons, etc.). In order to flesh this out further, I would advance the following questions for further discussion (in conjunction with what is argued on pages 17 and 26-29):

Suppose there are only two people who have ever lived. One is Bob, the other John. Suppose Christ died only for the sins of Bob. How is Christ dying for Bob’s sins sufficient for John’s sins? If Christ didn’t provide atonement for John’s sins, then what was done for Bob is of no relevance to John. How could it be? The intrinsic worth of Christ’s work done on behalf of Bob doesn’t secure sufficiency for John. How could it? Nothing was done for John’s sins. So how is what Christ didn’t accomplish on behalf of John allegedly sufficient to deal with his sin?

Secondly, there is a problem with limited atonement removing the legal obstacles required for grounding a legitimate gospel offer for the non-elect. Consider the following question:

On what grounds is God able to forgive the non-elect in accordance with his justice?

This question highlights again the failure of limited atonement to adequately ground a legitimate gospel offer to the non-elect. This came out clearly in a shockingly candid moment in the podcast. At the 1:22:06ish mark, the man on the right said that if he knew a person was non-elect, he wouldn’t preach the gospel to them! This statement is astonishingly telling because it betrays a number of critical errors. Not only does it fail to understand the importance of God using means in His providential ordering for various just ends, but it also fails to appreciate the fact that Christ offered salvation to the non-elect (See John 5 and 6). Moreover, his admission demonstrates the very failure of limited atonement in grounding a universal gospel offer. Salvation cannot be legitimately offered to the non-elect given limited satisfaction. To stress again, as I did in the book, the ignorance of the preacher has nothing to do with the logical problem—or the thankfulness problem, or the judgment problem.

I would encourage anyone looking for a powerful treatment of such things to check out Ponter’s developed argument here.

—-

Much was made of the term “whosoever” and my comment about translations and not knowing Greek. Honestly, I think they missed the point. I have no beef whatsoever with the importance of knowing the Greek. It is extremely valuable. However, it is undoubtedly the case that men, when confronted with a text that doesn’t sit well with their theological paradigm, will sometimes massage the Greek in order to avoid what it is saying. I’ve seen this many times. And I trust they can think of examples as well. If a person looks at, say, five respected translations and none of them render the Greek in a way that accords with their own handling of the Greek, it is more than likely that that person is riding the wonky train. That seems like a reasonable thing to say.

In the case of John 3:16, I am saying, “You are the man!”

First off, I laid out multiple lines of evidence establishing beyond a reasonable doubt the universality of John 3:16 in its context. They didn’t interact with it. Here I would again strongly encourage them to consider the critical nature of the prologue and its connection to John 3:16, the bronze serpent, the juxtaposition of responses, etc.

Secondly, they didn’t interact with footnote 30 where I quote Dr. Mounce as writing,

“Contextually, John is asserting a relatively unusual notion that God not only loves those who follow him (John’s normal usage) but he actually loves the entire world, hence requiring an indefinite construction. To limit the meaning of the statement to a subgroup of people, ‘those among you who believe,’ is to read in a theology not supported by the Greek (and I am Reformed). And, ‘Can you translate the verse without ‘whoever’? Sure, as long as you choose words that are not limiting. ‘God loved the world so he gave his only Son, that every one who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.’”

Moreover, they didn’t interact with the illustration demonstrating the faulty reasoning undergirding the strict particularist’s agenda for making such a move with “whosoever” as a restricting element to the overall point of the text (see the example of the coach and his team in the book).

—-

Lastly, I want to say a word about what was said at the end of the podcast. I cannot help but find it a touch ironic that they didn’t like my, shall I say, cheeky tone (which was meant to be taken seriously, but also in a playful way throughout the book), but then proceeded to end with gross mischaracterizations and accusations. Seriously. The gentleman who wrote that should be ashamed.

I would encourage anyone to listen to the last five minutes or so and ask themselves if that fairly represents the classically Calvinist view, or even the implications of the classically Calvinist view. One could wonder if that gentleman understands the effectuating side of the view, whereby God did most perfectly and infallibly purchase redemption for the elect, securing both salvation and its inevitable application, by virtue of God’s electing love. Naval gazing has nothing to do with anything here. Nor some failure of atonement. The best that one could say, given his convictions, is that such things apply to the satisfaction rendered for the rest of humanity. But even here it would fall short and be stated far too strongly, in my opinion.

I wonder if he would say such things about many of the respected signatories at Dort? Or Calvin? Or Luther? Or Ursinus? Or Charles Hodge?

Please.

As I said at the beginning of the book, this is a full contact sport, and I don’t expect anything less from detractors. I just ask that they fairly represent the view.

—-

A quick aside for the sake of clarity: no one here is denying the debt imagery of Christ’s atonement. The point of the arguments in chapter 14 centered on the nature of commercial transactions instantly freeing a debtor, and penal categories whereby conditions can be justly established for the acquisition of a thing. Commercialistic categories also undergird Owen’s trilemma, and this is viewed by many, even by strict particularists, as faulty.

Herman Witsius wrote, “XV. I know not whether that stubbornness of style wherein they delight in explaining the sufferings of Christ, arises from this, that they think he was so substituted for sinners that he behooved to undergo precisely the same punishment, which was otherwise due to our sins, and which the damned shall suffer in their own persons. Which opinion Owen defends at large in his Prolegomena to the Hebrews, vol. 2. page 80, &c.”

Herman Witsius, Conciliatory, or Irenical Animadversions on the Controversies Agitated in Britain (Glasgow: Printed by W. Lang, 1807), 50.

Lastly, for those interested in pondering the shift from the original understanding of the Lombardian formula amongst the Reformed to that of the strict particularists, one might find the following helpful.

[Link to their YouTube Review can be found here.]