President Johnny Hunt: Friend to the Reformed in the SBC?

Speaking at the Founders Breakfast previous to this year’s Southern Baptist Convention, Dr. Danny Akin, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and personal friend of SBC President Johnny Hunt, asserted that Hunt (who he recognized as previously guilty of slandering the Reformed position) has become more friendly to those with Reformed convictions and to Reformed soteriology itself in the past couple of years, largely due to Hunt reading Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology. (Dr. Akin explained the fact that First Baptist Church Woodstock, which Hunt pastors, hosted the anti-Calvinist “John 3:16 Conference” in light of the fact that the Conference was hosted by FBC Woodstock member Jerry Vines, and was planned long in advance.)

One piece of evidence that may tend to support Dr. Akin’s assertion of Hunt’s greater friendliness to the Reformed soteriological position may be found in the Strange BaptistFire article, “A very ‘Calvinistic’ sermon from SBC President Johnny Hunt,” which is the fifth-most viewed post of all time from this blog. I encourage readers to view that post and to listen to the sermon linked on that post and to consider whether those with Reformed convictions may indeed be encouraged by Johnny Hunt’s leadership in the SBC.

Compilation of Posts Responding to Mark Driscoll’s Presentation of Un/Limited Atonement

Introduction

Why Did Jesus Die?

The Chart

The Proof-Texts

Calvin Quotes

An Unaddressed Question

“Reconciliation”

The Day of Atonement

Response to Driscoll’s Presentation of Un/Limited Atonement: The Day of Atonement

In the “Question and Answer” section of his chapter on “Unlimited Limited Atonement” in Death by Love, Mark Driscoll writes, “Jesus’ work on the cross follows the pattern of the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16)… The two goats provided propitiation and expiation on behalf of all the people, even though these benefits were applied only to God’s elect, a remnant within the larger group” (179).

This kind of analogy (between the atonement made by Christ and the atonement made on the Day of Atonement) is persuasive at first glance against Limited atonement. When I first began struggling to understand the biblical teaching on the extent of the atonement, I had considered a similar conclusion to that reached by Driscoll specifically due to the system of atonement found in the Old Testament. Two considerations led me to reconsider such conclusions based on “the pattern of the Day of Atonement.”

Response to Driscoll’s Presentation of Un/Limited Atonement: “Reconciliation”

In Death by Love Mark Driscoll writes, “…Jesus died for all people in general so that they obtain some general benefits, and for the elect Christians in particular so that they would enjoy additional specific benefits regarding salvation.” Considered on its own, there is nothing objectionable about this quote, and “5-point Calvinists” have made similar statements. (For example, Charles Spurgeon has been quoted as saying, “We believe that by His atoning sacrifice, Christ bought some good things for all men and all good things for some men.”) What makes Driscoll’s view objectionable, however, is the content of what “general benefits” he understands to be purchased for “all people” through the death of Christ.

Response to Driscoll’s Presentation of Un/Limited Atonement: An Unaddressed Question

In Death by Love Mark Driscoll writes, “Christ died for the purpose of providing payment for the penalty of all sin of all people” (173).

If the penalty of the non-elect has been paid, then why do they suffer eternal wrath? This crucial question is not mentioned, much less answered, by Driscoll.

the second most views = the most recommended post

For quite a while now, WordPress has recorded 499 views for a post I wrote titled, “A Must-Hear Sermon on the Doctrine of Election” (the number of views for this post have only been surpassed by “Jerry Vines Preaches John 3:16 Sermon at SBTS,” mentioned yesterday).

“A Must-Hear Sermon on the Doctrine of Election” is the post from Strange BaptistFire that I would most recommend to readers of this site, not because of anything that I wrote in that post, but because of the sermon linked at the end of the post: a sermon on Romans 8:26-9:6a by Dr. Russell Moore. I hope that anyone who has not yet done so will follow the link above and will benefit from Dr. Moore’s teaching.

Response to Driscoll’s Presentation of Un/Limited Atonement: Calvin Quotes

When a theologian presents a doctrinal view that few, if any, Christians in the history of the church have held, then this may raise questions as to whether such a view can be correct. If the doctrinal view in question is one that is important to the Christian faith, doesn’t it seem that many other Bible students would have come to this same view in the past? In Death by Love Mark Driscoll seeks historical support for his position by claiming John Calvin as a major theologian who held to the Un/limited view of the atonement.

It must be noted that Calvin’s view of the extent of the atonement is a highly controversial matter in the subject of Church History. (The classic works that examine Calvin’s relation to the doctrine of Limited atonement are R.T. Kendall’s Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649- arguing that Calvin held to universal redemption- and Paul Helm’s Calvin & the Calvinists- arguing that Calvin held to particular redemption, or Limited atonement.)

Driscoll focuses on Calvin’s comments concerning a handful of verses, such as Galatians 5:12 and Colossians 1:14. In response to Driscoll’s presentation I would like to note two things:

Why the most views?

The post on this site that has had the most views is “Jerry Vines Preaches John 3:16 Sermon at SBTS.” This has been the case for a while now, and more views are recorded for this post all the time.

I can’t figure out why this should be the case; as far as I can tell, no high-trafficking blog has linked this post, and the post does not rate high on Google searches for “Jerry Vines,” “John 3:16,” “SBTS,” etc. Furthermore, there is nothing controversial in this post and no lengthy comment thread under the post.

Anyone have any ideas why this particular post should get so many views?
Please leave your thoughts below.

Response to Driscoll’s Presentation of Un/Limited Atonement: The Proof-Texts

Aside from assuming Arminian definitions for the terms “world” and “all” in a number of Bible passages, Driscoll [in Death by Love] presents two verses in particular as requiring an “Un/limited” view of the atonement. These verses are 1 Timothy 4:10 and 2 Peter 2:1.

But do either of these verses teach the “Un/limited” view of the atonement?

Response to Driscoll’s Presentation of Un/Limited Atonement: The Chart

On page 168 of Death by Love Driscoll presents a chart comparing different views of the atonement. The chart includes information on “Christian” Universalism, Contemporary Pelagianism, Unlimited Atonement, Limited Atonement, and Unlimited Limited Atonement. (Driscoll identifies the first two categories just mentioned as heresies.) For each of the views just mentioned the chart identifies four aspects: “View of Sin,” “Who Jesus Died For,” “How Atonement Is Applied,” “Heaven & Hell.”

In this post, I am most concerned with the differences Driscoll indicates between the “Limited Atonement” and “Unlimited Limited Atonement” categories.

In regards to the categories just mentioned, Driscoll’s chart indicates that their “View of Sin” is identical: both those who hold to “Limited Atonement” and those who take the “Unlimited Limited Atonement” position believe that “We are born sinners guilty in Adam.”

Likewise, Driscoll’s chart indicates that those who hold to “Limited Atonement” and those who take the “Unlimited Limited Atonement” position give identical teaching in regards to “Heaven & Hell” [as it relates to election]: “God does not need to save anyone from hell, but chooses to save some.”

The “Limited Atonement” and “Unlimited Limited Atonement” views differ, according to this chart, in their teaching about “Who Jesus Died For” and “How Atonement Is Applied.” “Limited Atonement” teaches that “Jesus died to achieve full payment for the elect,” whereas “Unlimited Limited Atonement” teaches that “Jesus died to provide payment for all, but only in a saving way for the elect.” “Limited Atonement” teaches that “God designed the atonement precisely for the elect,” whereas “Unlimited Limited Atonement” teaches that, “While God desires the salvation of all, he applies the payment to the elect, those whom he chose for salvation.” The substantial differences between these views (as presented in this chart) lie in the “Unlimited Limited” assertions that “Jesus died to provide payment for all” and “God desires the salvation of all.”

I will concede that one of these differences is a legitimate point of debate, while arguing that the other does not truly represent a difference between these views.