Wednesday, May 22, 2019

David L. Allen on Romans 8:32-34, Christ as a "Propitiation," and Arguments for Limited Atonement


In his recent book on the atonement, David L. Allen does a very good job at refuting many arguments in favour of Limited/Particular Atonement. This post will present two such arguments: (1) his comments on Rom 8:32-34 and (2) the claim that, if Jesus’ atonement was propitiatory, this necessitates limited atonement.

Rom 8:32-34 reads as follows:

He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. (NASB)

Some Calvinists use this as a “proof-text” for Particular/Limited Atonement. Writing in response to this, David L. Allen, a critic of Reformed theology, provided the following answer:

Some have attempted to use this text to support limited atonement. Their argument is as follows. The “all” for whom Christ died, according to this passage, are given “all things.” The non-elect are not given all things; therefore, Christ did not die for them. This is a modus tollens argument as distinguished from a modus ponens argument with an a fortiori (greater to the lesser) layer as well: (2) If Christ died for you (the greater thing), you will be given “all things,” including all consequent gifts (lesser things). (2) Some—i.e., the non-elect—are not given the lesser things. (3) Therefore, Christ did not die for some (the non-elect). If P (you are died for; the greater thing), then Q (all things are given; the lesser things). Not Q (some are not given all things); therefore not P. The argument has a valid modus tollens form, but it is an unsound argument:

All the died-for receive all things.
Some do not receive all things;
Therefore, they are not died-for.

Here is the fallacy: The “us” (in “delivered Him up for us all,” Rom 8:32) is being converted into “all for whom Christ died,” when, contextually, the “us” refers to believers, not all for whom Christ died.

This line of reasoning fails to recognize that Paul is addressing believers and describing their status as believers in relation to God’s blessings. It confuses what Paul says to believers and about believers and extrapolates it into an abstraction concerning all the elect, whether believing or unbelieving. But this merely begs the question concerning the content of the atonement. The “all” in this passage refers to all believers, as context makes clear. To conclude from Rom 8:32 that Christ died only for believers and not for anyone else is to invoke the inference fallacy.

Paul is not speaking about all the elect qua elect, considered as an abstract class (the as yet unborn elect and the living but unbelieving elect). Paul’s point is that no condemnation accrues to believers for whom Christ died (the greater gift) and that they will be given all things (the lesser gifts), not that Christ did not die for all unbelievers. (David L Allen, The Atonement: A Biblical, Theological, and Historical Study of the Cross of Christ [Nashville: B&H Academic, 2019], 92-94)

With respect to the meaning of ιλασμος (“propitiation”) in texts such as 1 John 2:1-2, some Reformed apologist (e.g., James R. White) have argued that this necessitates limited atonement, unless one wishes to be an Universalist. As Allen notes, this is fallacious:

With respect to the word “propitiation” (Gk. hilasmos), it is important to note that John uses the noun form of the word and states that Christ is the propitiation for our sins and for the sins of the whole world. As scholars have demonstrated, “propitiation” includes “expiation.” Advocates of limited atonement often make a serious mistake when they make an invalid noun-to-verb conversion of the noun “propitiation.” Nouns and verbs are distinct for a reason. Nouns speak to what a thing is or what it does. Verbs speak to what a thing is doing or has done or shall do. Unlike verbs, nouns do not have a tense. The result is to read “propitiation” as if it is speaking about the atonement as both accomplished and applied—or accomplished with intent to apply effectually only to the elect. Christ is viewed as actually propitiating and forgiving, and reconciling those for whom the propitiation was made. But this is emphatically not what the verse says.

Once the illegitimate noun-to-verb transfer is made, then syllogistic arguments follow. For example, if “world” means all people, this would entail that all humanity’s sin has been propitiated and expiated (as an accomplished action with resulting salvation, according to limitarians); but given that it is not the case and that the sins of all humanity have been expiated, “world,” therefore, cannot denote all humanity. In other words:

1. If Christ has propitiated the wrath of God for a man (hypothetically named “Smith), then that man cannot fail to be saved.
2. Christ has propitiated the wrath of God for Smith.
3. Therefore, Smith cannot fail to be saved.

Or, to rephrase the syllogism into a Modus Tollens argument:

If Christ died for the whole world, then the whole world will necessarily be saved.

It is not the case that the whole world is saved;

Therefore, it is not the case that Christ died for the whole world.

The syllogisms are formally valid but not logically sound because the first premise works only on the noun-to-verb conversion. However, the noun hilasmos (“propitiation”), does not refer to an accomplished past-tense action but to function—i.e., how something is accomplished. “Propitiation” points back to Christ’s sacrifice for sins as a means for sinners to find forgiveness. The cross is the means whereby one may find forgiveness—via an accomplished propitiation/expiation (noun) for sins, not to an already accomplished application of the benefits of the atonement as subjective effect already completed.

Consider 1 John 2:1 as a parallel example and comparable in structure to 1 John 2:2. John says, “If anyone sins, we have an Advocate.” Here, Advocate (Gk. paraklēton) is a noun, and the sense is, if anyone seeks pardon for his sins, there is an advocate for them. The sense is not that Christ has already advocated (past tense verb indicated accomplished action) for them, but that He is their “Advocate” or the Counselor to whom they may go to find help and comfort. That is, if they confess their sin, He will advocate on their behalf. John is describing Christ’s office and function as Advocate—what He will accomplish with regard to those who confess their sins.

John’s point in 1 John 2:2 is that there is an accomplished, objective atonement that provides an ongoing means for subjective reconciliation to occur between a sinner and God when the sinner comes to God through Christ by faith. Propitiation accomplished does not, and cannot, ipso facto mean propitiation applied. Without repentance there can be no advocacy applied (1 John 2:1), and without faith in Christ there can be no propitiation applied. Christ’s death on the cross has made propitiation for the sins of all people and is objectively available—conditionally as to its efficacy to all who will come to God through Christ by faith. If any person confesses his sin, he will find in Christ an Advocate, because Christ is “the propitiation for our sins, and not or ours only but also for the whole world.” (Ibid. 160-62, italics in original)

Further Reading