top of page

Romans 8:31–34 Again . . . Responding to James White, Part 1

Part 1 of a 3-part series.


In September I published “Yes, Jesus Did Die for [the Sins of] Everyone!” in response to a Gospel Coalition article championing limited atonement. As a follow–up, I posted “Responding to My Responders” focusing on several comments and questions made on social media. This garnered the attention of James White, who tweeted about it then mentioned it on his radio show, The Dividing Line (September 17, 2019). He was especially interested in my comments about Romans 8:31–34 with respect to limited atonement and the elect.


On October 29, 2019, White devoted about an hour of discussion on “The Dividing Line” to the section on Romans 8:31–34 in my latest book, The Atonement: A Biblical, Theological, and Historical Study of the Cross of Christ (B&H Academic, 2019).


I appreciate James White’s engagement at this point, because, quite frankly, few other Calvinists who affirm limited atonement have shown any willingness to engage my work on this subject. My book, The Extent of the Atonement: A Historical and Critical Review appeared three years ago. I had hoped that it would engender discussion on this important topic and garner some scholarly reviews and interaction. Instead, for the most part, it appears the book is being ignored by those within the Reformed community who affirm limited atonement.[1]


The Atonement: A Biblical, Theological, and Historical Study of the Cross of Christ contains more exegetical data related to atonement texts, but is intended to be a survey and not an exhaustive attempt to provide all the exegesis on atonement issues.


White asserts on his two aforementioned “Dividing Line” broadcasts that I offer no exegesis from the text of Scripture supporting my claims regarding Romans 8:32–34.[2] This statement carries a certain irony since it is common among limitarians to sidestep the exegetical evidence that clearly supports unlimited atonement in many New Testament texts and appeal to broader theological/logical issues, which, we are told, should be considered as paramount in deciding the issue. On this approach, the clear texts affirming unlimited atonement simply do not teach unlimited atonement and must be filtered through deductive logical/theological arguments, such as Double Payment, Triple-Choice, Trinitarian Disharmony, Universalism Entailed, etc., none of which occur in Scripture.


White also claims his exegesis of the text demonstrates where I have erred. His assertion deserves a response, and he shall have it. I urge readers to listen to White’s two “Dividing Line” broadcasts to get a sense of his exegesis of the text in question, then compare my exegesis below. I am writing with one eye toward how this text impinges on the extent of the atonement and with one eye on White’s critique of what I have written about this text. A fully detailed exegesis of every nook and cranny of these verses is not necessary; we will confine ourselves to addressing the pertinent issues and information.


My two-fold thesis is simple: 1) It is common among the Reformed to speak theologically of “the elect” as an abstract class. However, the New Testament always speaks of the elect as either the body of believers as redeemed and in a justified state, or in reference to an individual believer, as in Romans 16:13; never in the abstract of the elect as all the predestined as such, the elect in an unbelieving state, and/or as yet unborn. 2) A careful reading and exegesis of Romans 8:31–34 indicates the text does not assert nor does it support limited atonement. White disputes both of these points.


Owing to the rebuttal nature of this post and the breadth of content herein a few opening remarks are in order.


First, my argument is not with White’s understanding of predestination and election, though I think he is in error here as well. He assumes his Reformed interpretation of Romans 8:28–30 is valid and that other hermeneutical/exegetical/theological options are invalid. This is of course begging the question on those issues specifically, but the refutation of White’s interpretation of Romans 8:31–34 does not depend on whether one agrees or disagrees with the Reformed interpretation of predestination and election. I affirm the biblical notions of predestination and election as White does; I merely interpret them differently, as do virtually all of those in Christendom who are not Calvinists.


Second, there is no need to refute the Calvinist interpretation of predestination and election in Romans 8:29–30. Why? All Calvinists who affirm unlimited atonement agree with the Calvinist interpretation of the golden chain of Romans 8:29–30. That’s just Calvinism. Thus, at least from the perspective of moderate Calvinists, acceptance of the traditional Reformed interpretation of Romans 8:29–30 neither necessarily leads one to conclude limited atonement nor that Romans 8:31–34 affirms limited atonement. This explains why the many Calvinists who do not affirm limited atonement such as John Calvin, John Davenant, Richard Baxter, Thomas Chalmers, Charles Hodge, W. G. T. Shedd, and Robert Dabney, to name only a few, do not exegete Romans 8:31–34 in the same way White does. It is also interesting to discover that many modern-day Calvinists, even some who affirm limited atonement, do not exegete Romans 8:32–34 and use it to support limited atonement as does White. Tom Schreiner and Doug Moo come to mind. More on this later.

For the sake of argument, one can grant the Reformed interpretation of Romans 8:29–30 since it still does not support White’s interpretation of Romans 8:31–34 as will become evident. I will attempt to demonstrate his misunderstanding and thus misuse of the immediately preceding context of Romans 8:28–30 in his interpretation of Romans 8:31–34.


Exegesis of Romans 8:28–34 [3]

Romans 8 specifically highlights the divine initiative, accomplishment, and consummation of salvation for all believers. This point is recognized by Arminians and Calvinists alike.[4] Yet, Moo correctly cautions: “This does not entail any minimizing of the importance of the human response of faith that has received so much attention in chaps. 1–4.”[5]


From the perspective of Romans as a whole, Paul continues in Romans 8 to expound upon the implications of justification by faith for the believer. Romans 8:1–30 contain five semantic paragraphs in the Greek New Testament, each functioning as justification for the final claim/conclusion of Paul in vv. 31–39: no one can prevail against the believer, and no one or nothing can separate the believer from the love of God. From the perspective of the overall semantic structure of Rom 8, vv. 31–39 constitute the most important information the author is conveying.[6]


All of Rom 8 is about the believer in Christ.[7] This is evidenced by the inclusio structure of vv. 1 and 39. Romans 8:1—“Therefore now there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”  Romans 8:39—“For I am convinced that neither death nor life…nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Notice the semantic parallels between these two verses. “No condemnation” parallels “nothing can separate us from the Love of God,” and the phrase “in Christ Jesus,” meaning those vitally in Christ through faith, concludes each verse. The focus of the entire chapter is on those who are “in Christ Jesus.” This is a crucial contextual point. Paul is addressing the topic of the life of the believer, as all the major exegetical commentaries on Romans note.


In the Greek text of Rom 8, the fifth paragraph, 8:28–30 semantically provides the fifth justification for the claim/conclusion in 8:31–39. Romans 8:31–39 is divided into two paragraphs: 8:31–34; 8:35–39. Each paragraph functions to make a claim that is based on Rom 8:1–30. Paul continues to develop the implications of what has preceded in the way he introduces v. 31: “What then shall we say to these things?” This is more than a rhetorical question. “These things” (tauta) can be taken either to refer to 5:1–8:30 or 1:16–8:30.[8]


In Part 2, I’ll continue exegeting Romans 8:28–30, then 8:31–34. In Part 3, I’ll provide theological analysis and consider the implications before my conclusion and an addendum.

 

[1]This is surprising and raises the obvious question: why? Some of my Reformed friends, both high and moderate Calvinists (moderate Calvinists affirm unlimited atonement and reject limited atonement), have suggested that the historical ground covered in the book is intimidating and some may not wish to engage at this level. The book, though far from being exhaustive, is something of a comprehensive introduction to the issue from a historical and theological perspective. Though exegesis is not the focus, there is a fair amount of exegesis involved in my presentation of the views of Calvinists who argued in favor of limited atonement and those who argued against limited atonement. It is incorrect to suggest the book contains no exegesis.

Additionally, The Extent of the Atonement contains a 100-page critique of every chapter in From Heaven He Came and Sought Her (2013). To my knowledge, this is the most extensive critique of that work which is touted as the best modern scholarly defense of limited atonement. To date, there has been no substantive interaction with or response to my critique by any of the authors in From Heaven He Came and Sought Her, or any other Calvinist who espouses limited atonement.

With respect to book reviews of The Extent of the Atonement, Jeffrey Johnson did offer a brief, overall critique of my Extent in an article published at the Founders Ministries website https://founders.org/reviews/the-extent-of-the-atonement/. See my August 21, 2017 rejoinder here: https://drdavidlallen.com/calvinism/response-to-jeffrey-johnsons-book-review-of-my-book-the-extent-of-the-atonement/. Partially as a result of my critique of Johnson’s 2017 book He Died for Me, he has published a 2018 revised and expanded work by the same title. His revised volume is less problematic than his first installment, though it is not without its problems as well.

[2]Here are some of his comments taken from both “Dividing Line” broadcasts: “Your tradition is against the exegesis of this text.” “This text absolutely says what David Allen says is nowhere in the Bible. It’s a tradition and not exegesis.” In reference to the article I wrote, White said: “We took it apart, demonstrated it was not exegetically based.” “What Dr. Allen is doing is taking an overarching context and reads it into any text to avoid what that text might actually be saying. I’m still looking for the exegesis.” “There is another atonement book. You at least get some of the biblical argumentation. Romans 8:32–34 gets at maximum of five relatively small paragraphs. There is no exegesis. 1100 plus pages [in my two books The Extent of the Atonement (2016) and The Atonement: A Biblical, Theological, and Historical Study of the Cross of Christ (2019)] – no meaningful exegesis of Romans 8 is provided.” “There is no concern for context. The only concern here is we have to make sure that Southern Baptists don’t believe in particular redemption. That’s the ultimate drive of these pages. Not what is in Scripture.” “This is a study in how to avoid the plain meaning of a text.” “The fallacy here is the lack of exegesis being offered by Dr. Allen.”

[3]I will use Greek transliteration without accent marks throughout for easier reference for those who do not read New Testament Greek.

[4]See, for example, D. J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 533; T. R. Schreiner, Romans, 2nded., BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2018), 449–ff.; Picirilli, as an Arminian, agrees: “God must always take the initiative in man’s salvation.” (R. E. Picirilli, Romans, CSS [Nashville: Randall House, 1975], 167); as does J. Cottrell, Romans (Joplin, MO: College Press, 2005), 1:502.

[5]Moo, Romans, 533.

[6]Ellis W. Deibler, A Semantic Structural Analysis of Romans (Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 1998), 174–204.

[7]Note how many times Schreiner, Moo, and Longenecker employ the word “believers” in their commentaries on Rom 8, and especially on Rom 8:31–39.

[8]As Schreiner says: “Paul reflects back on 5:1–8:30 and considers the greatness of what God has accomplished on behalf of believers,” Schreiner, Romans, 448. Schreiner takes the tauta to refer to all that Paul has said in Romans 1:16–8:30 (Ibid., 449 –50).


bottom of page