Section 14
Go to Chapter 7 – The Indispensability of Reason and Logic in Biblical Interpretation
In philosophy and apologetics, the canons of reason cannot be violated while one still claims that their worldview is true. The same applies to biblical exegesis. Exegesis is essential for the discovery of theological truth. As a search for the truth, the rational coherence of that exegesis must be considered in determining the validity of that exegesis and the theological constructs built upon it.
For instance, Dr. David Allen’s exegesis of 1 Timothy 2:1-6[87] defends a universal atonement in contrast to Calvinism’s limited atonement (the “limitarian” position), and God’s universal saving will in contrast to Calvinism’s unconditional election in which God does not desire the salvation of all individuals. On a “Soteriology 101” podcast,[88] which is the website of provisionist Leighton Flowers, Dr. David Allen states,
“This is also one of the most crucial texts in the New Testament that clearly affirms a universal atonement. But now look at the text carefully. Notice that it not only affirms universal atonement Dr. Flowers, but it also affirms what theologians refer to as God’s universal saving will – the fact that God desires that all people be saved. It’s called God’s universal saving will. And notice that statement in verse [sic] 3 – God wants everyone to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. A parallel passage here, by the way, is 2 Peter 3:9, “God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.” So you have the use of the word “all” there, you have the use of the word “all” in the 4 through 6 passage here in Timothy, and these are passages that first of all indicate that God desires to save all people.
Now, there is a branch of Calvinism called hyper-Calvinism that denies…God’s universal saving will – that God desires the salvation of all people. Now, they are labeled as hyper-Calvinists, and other Calvinists reject them and reject that and say that’s an extreme and that’s false to affirm that and so forth…Now there are other things that make a person a hyper-Calvinist, we’re just limiting ourselves to that point, but that’s something that I think is very important to take note of.
This is a text, and there are others, as well as in the Old Testament, that affirm that God doesn’t desire that any perish, but that all should come to repentance. And that’s very clearly stated here in 1 Timothy 2, verse [sic] 3 – God wants everyone to be saved.
Now here’s the problem for the limitarian. The limitarian has the problem of figuring out or of reconciling God’s universal saving will with the fact…that God only designed that Jesus die for certain people’s sins. That becomes a contradictory issue.
Now there have been a number of books that have been written in recent years including more recently John Piper’s book on does God desire everyone to be saved…These books are examples of Calvinist’s trying to reconcile these two because they recognize this is a problem. How do you recognize God’s universal saving will with the fact that he…is limited in atonement? Now the fact of the matter is that can’t be reconciled, and moderate Calvinists and all non-Calvinists make that point very clearly. From a high-Calvinist position it’s very difficult to make that work because you wind up with a logical contradiction. In fact, many of these authors if you read them, both past and present, high-Calvinist theologians and others, will say yeah it’s a problem and we just have to live with it. You know, it’s either an antinomy or it’s a paradox or it’s a mystery – there’s a common term – you know it’s a mystery and you retreat behind a curtain of mystery. Well you know…there are some things that are mysterious – there are legitimate mysteries – but there’s a difference between a mystery and just a flat out contradiction. And you can’t – that’s part of the problem here.”[89]
Note that for David Allen, rational coherence and non-contradiction are essential for determining the true meaning of a text. The logical irreconcilability of the Calvinist position is a tell-tale sign to Dr. Allen that their position is incorrect. Meaning to use the word “reconcile”, Allen asks, “How do you recognize [sic] God’s universal saving will with the fact that he…is limited in atonement?” Allen answers, “Now the fact of the matter is that can’t be reconciled, and moderate Calvinists and all non-Calvinists make that point very clearly.” One wonders how Dr. Allen would have finished his truncated thought in his last sentence – “And you can’t…” From what he states later on, I suspect he wanted to say “And you can’t have a contradiction and your exegesis be valid” or something to that effect.
Be that as it may, the point is made. Those Calvinists who affirm God’s desire to save all have landed in a contradiction and do not seem to give this fact interpretive significance whereas Dr. Allen, Dr. Flowers, as non-Calvinists, do. But as we will see below, Calvinists will make an illegitimate semantic “move” to get around their problem.
Counter to statements made by Calvinist’s Thomas Schreiner and Bruce Ware that non-Calvinist objections to Calvinism are mainly logical and moral rather than exegetical,[90] Dr. Allen goes on to carefully exegete 1 Timothy 2:1-6 pointing out Paul’s “further logic”[91] and refuting the Calvinist interpretation that the “all” refers to all without distinction not all without exception.[92]
“So the first thing I point out is notice God’s universal saving will. Now contextually, notice Paul is saying, he’s desiring that prayers be made for all people – for everyone. Then he gives a specific group in verse 2, but he doesn’t intend for people to only pray for kings and those in authority – he’s already said he wants people to pray for everybody. He wants everybody to be prayed for. Alright? So then you come to verse 4, God wants everyone to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth…Now notice the further logic. There’s one God, one mediator between God and humanity. Notice that. CSB translates God and humanity. The reference is to all people. And who is the one mediator between God and all people? The man Christ Jesus. Then you have the relative clause that begins verse 6 that further describes who this mediator is and more specifically in verse 6 what this mediator does. Who he is verse 5, what he does is verse 6. “Who gave himself as a ransom for all.” Notice he doesn’t say gave himself a ransom for the elect. It says he gave himself a ransom for all. That is a clear statement that affirms universal atonement.
Now, what limitarians are forced to do with this text is to come up with an ingenious way of getting around the obvious meaning by pulling out this all without distinction verses all without exception. And so they’re saying well now all doesn’t always mean all. By the way, nobody ever said it did….I understand that “world” and “all” have varieties of meaning. That’s not the point. The point is that in atonement contexts it becomes very clear that contextually “all” means all without exception and not just all without distinction…The “all without distinction” concept for the high-Calvinist becomes something of a code for “some of all without distinction.” So now we’re making a move here. Watch the move. The “all” becomes “some of all kinds.” That’s an unwarranted move that’s made first by Owen and all who follow Owen who are high-Calvinists. So, ask yourself what the statement “all without distinction” means in the context of atonement passages. The answer is it means all kinds of people, that is, all people of every kind, not some people of every kind. The problem with applying this distinction to passages like 1 Timothy 2:4 is the use of “all” in the text gets transmuted into meaning “some of all kinds of people.” Do you see that? Do you see how the word “all” there gets transmuted into a meaning of “some of all kinds of people?” That’s not what Paul said. Alright. That is eisegesis. Reading into the text or out of the text something that’s not there…Since the adjective “all” modifies “men” in the Greek text of 1 Timothy 2:4, it is not possible to change “all” into “some men of all kinds,” thus making the “all” modify “kinds” and not the word “men” as is properly considered in the text.
Now we’re doing here careful exegesis in the Greek text. Alright? But that is a semantic shift that all high-Calvinists make on this text in order to make it fit…But apparently then for some of these Calvinists, since “all” sometimes can mean “all of some sorts” or “some of all sorts” it can never mean, in any atonement context, all humanity that includes each and every person. The logical fallacy should be evident. In context, Paul was asking Christians to pray for actual people, not classes of people! The point is this, “Don’t exclude anyone from your prayers no matter their social status.”
…So you get this issue where you are converting all without…exception. You’re trying to avoid a universal atonement here by creating a category that Paul disallows, that first of all hermeneutically, secondly exegetically, thirdly theologically can’t be wheedled out of this passage. It’s just not possible to do that. That’s a misuse of the text to try to force it to mean something that it doesn’t mean.”[93]
Now, note that Dr. Allen observed that Calvinists who would affirm limited atonement and yet also affirm that God desires the salvation of all individuals are trying to reconcile these two views because they recognize they have “a problem.” But what is the nature of their “problem?” It is that they ultimately find themselves in “a contradictory issue.” Indeed, Dr. Allen states that the fact of the matter is they “can’t be reconciled…because you wind up with a logical contradiction.” Recall again that he states, “there’s a difference between a mystery and just a flat out contradiction.” Now, the important thing to see here is that when an interpretation “winds up in a logical contradiction,” we know that some element of that interpretation must be wrong. Note that Dr. Allen presupposes that he knows a contradiction when he sees one. The laws of logic, his human reason, and moral intuitions are in play here. Interestingly, the limitarian Calvinist is also affirming the necessity, utility, and reliability of human reason, for they recognize the logical problem they are in, given texts like this that affirm that God desires to save all individuals. God’s desire to save all is incoherent and in contradiction with the claim that God has limited the atonement. This only goes to show that the Calvinists’ flights to mystery and incomprehensibility are concocted to dodge the incoherencies, inconsistencies, and contradictions their interpretations of Scripture generate.
Dr. Allen demonstrates that both exegetically and in light of a clear and plain reading of the text, “all” means all without exception and not just all without distinction.” Note carefully that Dr. Allen takes context into consideration in his exegesis. He specifically states, “The point is that in atonement contexts it becomes very clear that contextually “all” means all without exception and not just all without distinction.” So what does the Calvinist do with the logical problem raised by texts that state that God desires all people to be saved in light of their doctrine of limited atonement, that is, that Jesus died only for a limited number of elect persons?
Dr. Allen points out that the Calvinist makes a “semantic shift.” He states,
“Watch the move. The “all” becomes “some of all kinds.” That’s an unwarranted move that’s made first by Owen and all who follow Owen who are high-Calvinists…The problem with applying this distinction to passages like 1 Timothy 2:4 is the use of “all” in the text gets transmuted into meaning “some of all kinds of people.” Do you see that?”
Note the scope of the problem the Calvinist has created for themselves in terms of our hermeneutical principles of consistency and comprehensiveness. Dr. Allen observes,
“Now we’re doing here careful exegesis in the Greek text. Alright? But that is a semantic shift that all high-Calvinists make on this text in order to make it fit…But apparently then for some of these Calvinists, since “all” sometimes can mean “all of some sorts” or “some of all sorts” it can never mean, in any atonement context, all humanity that includes each and every person. The logical fallacy should be evident. In context, Paul was asking Christians to pray for actual people, not classes of people! The point is this, “Don’t exclude anyone from your prayers no matter their social status.” (emphasis mine)
According to the Calvinist, Paul’s use of the word “all” (men) is turned into “some” (men). The Calvinists’ interpretive approach violates the principles of context (the context dictates “all men”) along with consistency and comprehensiveness (other atonement passages must be read as meaning “some men” and could never mean “all men.”)
Dr. Allen’s conclusion is,
“…So you get this issue where you are converting all without…exception. You’re trying to avoid a universal atonement here by creating a category that Paul disallows, that first of all hermeneutically, secondly exegetically, thirdly theologically can’t be wheedled out of this passage. It’s just not possible to do that. That’s a misuse of the text to try to force it to mean something that it doesn’t mean.”
The Calvinist runs up against a three-fold problem – hermeneutically, exegetically, and theologically – that he does not consider to be interpretively significant. The original problems of inconsistency and contradiction are ignored. These do not cause the Calvinist to go back to the text to seek an exegesis that is both exegetically sound and free from contradiction, which is what Dr. Allen offers us here. Rather, these high-Calvinists attempt a semantic shift to create a category of “some people of every kind” – a category Paul does not intend by his use of the word “all.” It is a classic case of eisegesis rather than exegesis, which goes to show how a particular doctrine or doctrines in one’s theological paradigm may mistakenly be considered a priori to be the biblical truth. Here they are the Calvinist doctrines of an eternal decree and sovereignty understood deterministically. Such presuppositions can influence the interpreter to rewrite a text, altering it from a proper exegesis and plain reading in its immediate and broader biblical context. Dr. Allen states,
“Do you see how the word “all” there gets transmuted into a meaning of “some of all kinds of people?” That’s not what Paul said. Alright. That is eisegesis. Reading into the text or out of the text something that’s not there…Since the adjective “all” modifies “men” in the Greek text of 1 Timothy 2:4, it is not possible to change “all” into “some men of all kinds,” thus making the “all” modify “kinds” and not the word “men” as is properly considered in the text.”
Now, with respect to this (or any) controversy, once logic is dismissed, then to what purpose is the exegetical enterprise or discussion about interpretive conclusions? The discussion ends in a dead-end of relativism. This is precisely what we have in this controversy. Each side can bring out its exegesis, but the bottom line with respect to discerning whether one’s exegesis accurately reflects the meaning of the text is going to be its coherence, consistency, and non-contradiction with the text itself, its broader context, and other exegetical and theological conclusions gleaned from the whole scope of Scripture. But if these foundational hermeneutical principles can ultimately be put out of court when one’s interpretations contravene these principles, then there will be no consensus on the meaning of the controversial texts. I submit that the interpretations that best incorporate these principles are those that are closer to the true meaning of the passage, that is, the authorial intent. And those that ignore these principles are simply preserving their traditional doctrines that have been permanently deemed, a priori, to be what the Bible teaches.
In other words, at the point that logical and moral considerations are dismissed from our hermeneutic, there is nothing left for us to do interpretively that would ever be productive in coming to agree on the meaning of the texts in question. Without a common logical and moral framework in place, what would discussion on this matter amount to or be able to achieve? What would we be attempting to do? Without a common understanding that the rules of logic and moral intuitions are essential to a proper hermeneutic, there would be nothing more to say. There would be nothing by which to ground an exegesis such that agreement on the objective meaning of a text could be achieved. We could never validate that one or the other of two mutually exclusive interpretations of a text is correct and the other is in error. Exegetical relativism results. Your interpretation is valid for you, and my interpretation is valid for me. We cannot talk about an identifiable objective meaning of a text if, when our exegesis proves itself to be incoherent, inconsistent, or in contradiction with other texts, we are always allowed to “defend” our exegesis by claiming it to be “incomprehensible to human reason” or a “mystery.” Neither side could persuade the other of the truth of their position. The grounds for persuasion have been banished. The Calvinist can always discount any objection to their interpretations based on their incoherence or inconsistency as attempts to employ and apply our faulty, sin-laden human reasoning to understand what the text says about God and his ways. But again, that is just question-begging. The non-Calvinist, as one who cherishes the use of reason and logic in biblical interpretation, will never, and should never, be persuaded by the Calvinists’ flight to mystery when his exegetical conclusions evidence incoherence, inconsistency, and contradiction. And neither should you be persuaded. The problem is clear. There is a hermeneutical divide consisting of whether our hermeneutics should include logical and moral coherence. The non-Calvinist says “Yes.” The Calvinist says, “No.”
Read the next section – David Allen, Leighton Flowers, God’s Love and Logical Entailment
Footnotes
[87] 1 Tim 2:1-6: “First of all, then, I urge that petitions, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone, 2 for kings and all those who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. 3 This is good, and it pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and humanity, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, a testimony at the proper time.” (CSB)
[88] Leighton Flowers, Soteriology 101 podcast, “Atonement for All, 1 Timothy 2:1-6 with David Allen.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9diyt5UVLU&t=13s / Last accessed 12/13/2025.
See also the first half of this podcast on 1 John 2:1-2. It is titled “Unlimited Atonement: 1 John 2:1-2 with Dr. David Allen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGGl9NWBbOQ&t=145s / Last accessed 12/13/2025.
[89] David L. Allen with Leighton Flowers, “Atonement for All: 1 Tim. 2:1-6 with David Allen.” (2:50 – 6:35). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9diyt5UVLU&t=13s / Last accessed 12/13/2025.
[90] See Chapter 9 – “Reason as Problematic for Reformed Interpretation”
[91] Atonement for All, 7:15.
[92] See David L. Allen, The Extent of the Atonement: A Historical and Critical Review (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2016), 707-709.
[93] Atonement for All, 6:35 – 12:36.
The Truth of the Gospel 