“The History & Theology of Calvinism, by Curt Daniel, Chapter 53, ‘Limited Atonement.’”

This will almost certainly be the most inflammatory posting regarding my reviews of the chapters in The History & Theology of Calvinism. Once more, I must admit to being at a loss as to why so many brethren are as excitable about this issue as they are. I suppose many have embraced dogmatic opinions about the topic without reading anything written by well-informed authors. 

As well, my experience suggests many are willing to label as heretics anyone holding a view they disagree with, even such men as Benjamin Keach, Andrew Fuller, William Carey, Adoniram Judson, Isaac Backus, George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, Isaac McCoy, John Gano, Hezekiah Smith, Daniel and Abraham Marshall, Dwight L. Moody, Charles Spurgeon, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, D. James Kennedy, Peter and Kenneth Connolly, and Peter Masters. These men include well-known Baptists and profoundly fruitful evangelists who, one would think, put to rest the notion that Calvinism stifles evangelism. 

My review of this book’s chapters does not include any advocacy of a position. Instead, it is an effort to overturn the obnoxious ignorance of those opposing a position they have no firsthand knowledge of, who demonstrate not only an absence of intellectual curiosity but also betray a fear that their convictions cannot stand up to facts they are unfamiliar with. I am convinced that if your beliefs result from erroneous conclusions, then your beliefs, however right, are wrong! To be right for the wrong reason is to be wrong! Truth, in both the recipe and the result, sets us free! 

This said, let us begin. 

The chapter is divided into eleven parts, beginning with an unlabeled introduction and ending with a labeled conclusion. 

Introduction – Comprised of two paragraphs, the author embraces Romans 5.8: “Christ died for us,” as a universally held Christian position while touching lightly on various substitution theories. He decries the term limited atonement and favors definite atonement or particular redemption and raises the question, “For whom did Christ die?” 

Election and the Atonement – Three paragraphs, while pointing out that both terms have to do with salvation, Second Thessalonians 2.13. Mention is made of comments made by Thomas Watson and Jonathan Edwards, and a sentence in the First London Baptist Confession of 1644. Romans 8.29-30 is also cited. 

Atonement for the Elect Bride – Six paragraphs. Ephesians 1 and 5 are referred to as showing the relationship between election, atonement, and salvation. Mention is made of Christ’s general love for all and His particular love for His bride. Hebrew marriage custom is referred to, husbands’ imitation of Christ’s love, as well as John 11.52 and Hebrews 12.5-11 and 2.13-17. 

The Shepherd and the Sheep – One paragraph. The Good Shepherd died for His sheep, not for the wolves and goats. 

Christ Died for His People – Eight paragraphs. Old and New Testament passages are cited. Mention is made of God’s provision of the Passover lamb for the Israelites, not the Egyptians. Reference is made to verses that indicate those for whom Christ died and those for whom He did not die. 

Deliverance from Evil and the Evil One – Three paragraphs. Christ did not die for Satan or the demons. The author asserts the same for the non-elect and points out the eternal destiny of Satan, the demons, and the non-elect is the same. 

Effectual Atonement – Eight paragraphs. “What God does, He always does as a Trinity. The Father effectually elected a definite and limited number of sinners, not all. The Holy Spirit effectually draws this same limited number to Christ. It follows that the second person of the blessed Trinity effectually redeemed those same elect and them alone. The father has a general love for all and a special electing love only for the elect. The Spirit gives a general call to all and a special call only to the elect. Christ died in a general way for all men but in a special way for the elect alone.” The author asserts that everyone except strict universalists believe in some limitation of the atonement, differing only in where they place the limitation. Spurgeon summed it up: “I would rather believe in a limited atonement that is efficacious for all men for whom it is intended, than a universal atonement that is not efficacious for anybody, except the will of man be joined with it.” Loraine Boettner: “The Calvinist limits it quantitatively, but not qualitatively; the Arminian limits it qualitatively, but not quantitatively.” 

The Special Intent – Four paragraphs. “The atonement was full payment, not a refundable down payment in part… He won… He did not fail.” 

The Double Payment and Triple Option – Four paragraphs. “Two further arguments in favor of particular redemption are related.” 

Miscellaneous Proofs – Ten paragraphs. The author reviews a popular argument that he asserts lacks merit. He reviews a less obvious argument. He refers to arguments some Calvinists use. He asserts, “Christ did not die for Judas, who hanged himself and went to Hell before Jesus died.” He quotes Spurgeon: “I thank God I do not believe that I was redeemed in the same way that Judas was, and no more. If so, I shall go to hell as Judas did. General redemption is not worth anything to anybody, for of itself it secures to no one a place in heaven; but the special redemption which does redeem, and redeems man out of the rest of mankind, is the redemption to be prayed for, and for which we shall praise God for ever and ever.” 

Conclusion – One paragraph.

"Should We Trade in Funerals for 'Celebrations of Life?'"

 I copied this in the dim recesses of the past, only for my ever-faithful secretary to discover it. However, it reflects a sentiment I have long held and was recently reminded of at the passing of a dear friend. I offer it to you for consideration and possible use. Click to see the full-size image. Download and use as it suits you.

The Command Is To Make Disciples

Some pastors and ministries major on soul-winning, which is good. Other pastors and ministries major on baptisms, which is not wrong in its place. Other pastors and ministries major on expositions and explanations, which also has its strengths. Important to remember, however, is the emphasis placed by the most well-known of the Great Commission passages, Matthew 28.18-20, on making disciples.

It is possible to reach people for Christ without making them disciples. It is possible to baptize a great many people without making them disciples. It is also plain to see that a ministry that is strong on exposition and explanation can still fall far short of bringing a significant portion of those in attendance along as disciples rather than mere spectators.

I have had the privilege of traveling to and preaching in countries in North America, Europe, Africa, and Asia. Throughout my 45+ years of ministry, I have not witnessed a disciple maker as well-developed, well-thought-out, and Biblical as Dr. Samuel Rai.

Now in his sixtieth year, his almost four decades of faithfulness to God's Word is demonstrable. I have preached for him numerous times since my first visit to Nepal in 2012 and three times in 2024. I say that to assure you of my recommendation of Samuel Rai as a man God has used to develop a profoundly fruitful evangelistic Church planting ministry that has seen great success in making disciples in every congregation.

I prayerfully invite you to attend his three-day, five-session introduction to discipleship ministry, which I have not seen elsewhere. Attend yourself, bring your wife, Church members, and young people. All are invited. Business casual attire will be the order of the day, and lunch will be served on Tuesday and Wednesday.

The History & Theology of Calvinism, by Curt Daniel, Chapter 52, ‘The Extent of the Atonement.

This is my first posting to this blog in 2025. I am resuming a chapter-by-chapter survey of a must-read book I recommend to every pastor who wants a better than second-hand understanding of a doctrinal position he may either ignorantly embrace or ignorantly repudiate. 

Many wear the cloak of the 21st-century clergy who form an opinion solely based on addressing a topic second hand, regardless of one’s view. That is sad but a commonly held practice throughout my faith observations for more than a half-century. One friend lost his pastor’s input into his life forever. How? He asked if they two could sit down and discuss the election issue. My experience was the refusal of my first pastor to answer any question I asked him. 

Again and again, over my first year as a Christian and Church member, my pastor repeatedly responded to my questions with a pat formula: “That’s an excellent question, and the subject of my present inquiry. I will get back to you when I arrive at a well-thought-out position.” Only he never did. That was how he dealt with any Bible question a member had given him. 

I recommend that Gospel ministers prepare to address challenging questions and curious inquiries and foster individual study of God’s Word. To that end, I resume my surveys of this informative book that you may or may not agree with but that will help you, nevertheless. 

The chapter is divided into seven subheadings, just over sixteen pages. 

History of the Debate – Five paragraphs address the three positions held by Reformed theologians. Augustine, Beza, Gottschalk, Calvin, Hoeksema, John Owen, Amyraut, and A. H. Strong are mentioned. The Canons of the Synod of Dort, the Westminster Confession, the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, and the Heidelberg Catechism are touched on. At the end of the section, the author urges caution when studying the matter. 

The Mainstream Position – Eight pages inform this section. Mentioned (with many quotations) are Ambrose, Luther, Ursinus, Zanchius, George Abbot, James Ussher, John Davenant, Richard Baxter, Edward Polhill, William Ames, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Robert Lewis Dabney, Charles and A. A. Hodge, William G. T. Shedd, William Cunningham, J. C. Ryle, W. H. Griffith Thomas, James Petigru Boyce, John Broadus, Louis Berkhof, Lorraine Boettner, D. A. Carson, Iain Murrey, John Murrey, R. C. Sproul, D. Martyn Lloyd Jones, and R. B. Kuiper. New to me was the notion of “The Lombardian formula.” They include Lutherans, Anglicans, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and Baptists. 

The Biblical Balance – Four paragraphs touch on numerous doctrines related to the topic of the atonement. 

Substitutionary Atonement – Three paragraphs. The author’s treatment of this crucial but often ignored facet of Biblical truth is dealt with in three paragraphs, mentioning Anselm, Samuel Rutherford, John Owen, and the historic agreement Calvinists and Arminians on it (while faithfully pointing out where some disagree on this essential matter). 

Infinite Value and Universal Sufficiency – Seven paragraphs. “Most Calvinists have accepted Peter Lombard’s formula: ‘Christ died sufficiently for all, but efficiently only for the elect.’” Also mentioned are Beza, Pescator, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Matthew Henry, Robert Murray M’Cheyne, Samuel Rutherford, and Charles Hodge, with several quotes including from the Scots Confession and the Canons of the Synod of Dort. 

Universal Benefits – Five paragraphs. Hoeksema, Spurgeon, and Polhill are cited. This section includes comments on universal non-saving benefits, which it has not been my experience to see often addressed by pastors to their congregations. 

The State of the Debate – “To recount, there are basically three Reformed positions. Christ died (1) only for the elect, (2) for all men but especially the elect, and (3) equally for all men. They all deny that all men will be saved in the end, for they all believe in the reformed doctrines of election and reprobation.” That begins the first of three paragraphs in this section, including brief comments about the errors of universal salvation. The author concludes the section with “The debate is not merely about the atonement’s universal aspects, infinite value, or universal sufficiency nor even primarily about the identity of those for whom Christ died. The real question is over the nature of the atonement as to the efficacy at the point at which it was made at Calvary. Did Christ merely provide for redemption, or did He guarantee it for the elect? Did he actually propitiate the Father, or did He merely provide a sacrifice that would allow the Father to grant salvation to whom He chooses? Those who believe in the strictly limited view and those who teach the both/and view differ with the ‘equally for all’view on this critical point. We hold that Christ did actually satisfy the Father’s wrath for the elect alone in such a way that guaranteed their salvation.” 

Conclusion – “In the next chapter we will discuss the biblical teaching on the particular aspect of the atonement for the elect alone. This is a distinctive element of mainstream Calvinism that is not shared with any other variety of evangelical theology.”

A Poor Style Of Christian

 We have much to learn from J. C. Ryle about matters related to personal holiness and what properly styles a Christian. This excerpt is taken from his devotional classic, "Holiness."

Needs of the Times

"Men who had understanding of the times'' (l Chronicles 12:32)

     These words were written about the tribe of Issachar, in the days when David first began to reign over Israel. It seems that after Saul's unhappy death, some of the tribes of Israel were undecided what to do. “Under which king?” was the question of the day in Palestine. Men doubted whether they should cling to the family of Saul, or accept David as their king. Some hung back, and would not commit themselves; others came forward boldly, and declared for David. Among these last were many of the children of Issachar; and the Holy Spirit gives them a special word of praise. He says, “They were men who had understanding of the times.”

     I cannot doubt that this sentence, like every sentence in Scripture, was written for our learning. These men of Issachar are set before us as a pattern to be imitated, and an example to be followed; for it is a most important thing to understand the times in which we live, and to know what those times require. The wise men in the court of Ahasuerus knew the times (Est. 1:13). Our Lord Jesus Christ blames the Jews, because they “knew not the time of their visitation” (Luke 19:44) and did not “discern the signs of the times” (Matt. 16:3). Let us take heed lest we fall into the same sin. The man who is content to sit ignorantly by his own fireside, wrapped up in his own private affairs, and has no public eye for what is going on in the church and the world is a miserable citizen, and a poor style of Christian. Next to our Bibles and our own hearts, our Lord would have us study our own times.

J. C. Ryle

Smugness

 

This installment is titled “Smugness.” 

What are we to do about Gospel ministers who do not think about thinking? What can we do about Gospel ministers who do not read about reading? What are we to do about Gospel ministers who do not study about studying? 

I am serious about these questions in my seventy-fifth year, my fifty-first year in the faith, and my forty-seventh year in the pastorate. My concern at this time is with smugness. 

Smugness, as I define it, is a somewhat subtle form of pride and cannot coexist with humility, which is one of the most Christ-like character traits. We see God’s attitude toward pride in James 4.6 and First Peter 5.5 and recognize how the Lord Jesus exemplified humility from Paul’s comments in First Corinthians 11.3 (where it is intimated the Second Person submits to the First Person throughout eternity) and Philippians 2.5-8 (where Paul’s use of the imperative shows the believer’s humility is not optional). 

How is smugness revealed in the thoughts and conduct of a Gospel minister? I would suggest various ways, including the complete absence of curiosity, when a view, a concept, a doctrinal position, or a variant stance on an issue is brought to our attention. Many peers and almost peers embrace the notion that they already know everything there is to know, understand everything there is to understand, and that no further progress is to be entertained, much less implemented. 

I remember a New Testament interpretation course at PCBBC. One day, a substitute filled in and was lecturing when one of my classmates raised his hand to ask him the source of the material he was teaching. The substitute teacher said, “These are my notes from BBC.” In other words, he had effectively learned nothing in the more than twenty years since he earned his ThG! Sad. I did not know at the time that I was appalled by his answer that so many in the ministry would not only not study the Bible (not really anyway) but would also never look at a systematic theology or missionary biography after leaving school. 

When I asked him what had recently captured his interest, I once had a missionary tell me, “Brother John, I don’t read.” I almost choked. A few years ago, a discouraged friend who had retired with a 10,000-volume library (he is truly a scholar) told me that his new pastor once said, “I don’t read. I listen to podcasts!” Has it come to that? 

I have a friend who no longer has a relationship with his pastor from childhood to his teen years after he asked him if they might spend some time discussing the doctrine of election. My friend had not formed an opinion or established a position, yet his pastor was so hostile to the word that their relationship was forever irreparably damaged. Seriously? 

Open, close, and closed communion is a topic never revisited once a position is staked out. The doctrines of grace are effectively avoided (regardless of one’s position) once the positions of your friends are known. Also, the treatment of brothers and sisters in Christ will frequently and callously ignore the Savior’s imperative of John 15.17, sometimes treating other believers as non-believers. 

I find such closed-mindedness offensive and reflects a gross misunderstanding of the illuminating ministry of the Holy Spirit, Who never teaches any of us everything and Who is always interested in revealing the truth to us as we exercise the correct use of means (reading, studying, praying, interacting with other faithful Bible students, etc.). 

Not too long ago, I read an astonishing declaration from someone who ought to know better, in which he said (in essence) that it is wrong to read anything written by anyone ‘who is not one of us.’ Sadly, he has ruled out so much. Do not read “The Theocratic Kingdom” by George Peters? Do not read the sermons that Spurgeon preached in print? Do not read accounts of great revivals written by the men who were there but were not Baptists? Do not read the writings of Jonathan Edwards? Seriously? 

It came to a head in my mind before I recently traveled to Nepal, where I had the opportunity to preach to several hundred Baptist pastors about holiness and the doctrine of the Bible. Several years ago, I was given a small book written by Charles L. Hunt. It is one of the most remarkable works I have ever read, bearing very heavily on the doctrine of the Church. Sadly, however, I have encountered the smugness I am writing about, with almost no one interested in a book that puts to rest once and for all the erroneous Protestant view of the Church. 

Whether you are young or old, with an established ecclesiology or not, I urge you to seriously consider this book, which I will send you upon request. The book will either seriously bolster the position you already embrace or change your stance entirely. At worst, it is a book I am sure you will want to pass on to others to read. 

JohnSWaldrip@ClassicalBaptist.Press

www.ClassicalBaptist.Press  

This installment is titled “My Growing Problem With Covenant Theology, Part 3.

I have been swamped the last few weeks, traveling to Nepal to preach and recovering from dear Church friends’ passing, so this post will be relatively brief.

I am currently reading two books while investigating the issue at hand, “From The Finger Of God: The Biblical and Theological Basis for the Threefold Division of the Law” by Philip S. Ross and “Identifying The Seed: An Examination and Evaluation of the Differences Between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology” by Robert McKenzie. 

I have been a Baptist pastor long enough (46 years) to know that some in the Dispensationalist community will be suspicious of me for investigating the CT position. In contrast, some in the CT community will be suspicious of me for investigating the claims of Dispensationalism. 

Some even advocate never reading anything written except by those who embrace your already embraced position. Seriously? What an indefensibly absurd notion. 

How does one learn about the First Great Awakening or the Second Great Awakening in that way, since God did not use Baptists as leaders in either of those great revivals? The same is true of the 1905 revivals in Wales and Korea. 

Take Independent fundamental Baptists. Holding that position would mean reading nothing written before 1920 and only IFB authors. What is the notable IFB leader who has ever advocated such absurdity? Not John R. Rice. Not Lee Roberson. There’s not anyone else I can think of. 

Oh well. 

Over the years, as you pastors know, Church members go away. Sometimes, they just stop attending and fade away, ignoring the impact of their actions on those who look up to them. Others demonstrate their testosterone deficiency by letting their wives speak for them (“My husband is not being fed”). Still others seek to cover their wives’ bossiness by claiming their reason for departing is “doctrinal differences.” 

People who leave Churches rarely leave for appropriate reasons and, even more, seldom provide the real reasons for their departure. It is a risk I am willing to take. 

My interest in these two positions arises from two considerations. First, I would love for our Church to be a comfortable place for someone with John Gill’s understanding of Scripture, Adoniram Judson’s understanding of Scripture, Isaac Backus’ understanding of Scripture, Charles Spurgeon’s understanding of Scripture, W. A. Criswell’s understanding of Scripture, and Peter Masters’ understanding of Scripture, etc. 

Is that so wrong? Are not each of the men I have mentioned orthodox, Bible-believing men? 

Second, I think my attitude should not be to defend a position held by friends and old classmates but to discover and apply the truth. Hence, a willingness to investigate positions held by good and godly men. 

I covet your prayers as I read, study God’s Word, and seek to understand that I might do the truth.