Section 15
Go to Chapter 7 – The Indispensability of Reason and Logic in Biblical Interpretation
Dr. Allen and Dr. Flowers will ultimately place their finger on the divide between Calvinists and non-Calvinists located precisely at the point of the logic of one’s interpretations. This matter lurks in the background of all discussions about whether Calvinism is biblical.
In delineating the theological beliefs that place a Calvinist in the “hyper-Calvinist” category,[94] Dr. Allen points out that one of them is the denial of God’s universal love, that is, that God loves all people. Note carefully the conclusions that Dr. Allen and Dr. Flowers draw regarding the logical incoherence of the Calvinist position on this matter. Dr. Allen states,
Dr. Allen: “Orthodox Calvinism does distinguish aspects of God’s love. That’s most clearly brought out in D. A. Carson’s The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God[95]…It’s important to recognize the distinction there between God’s love for all people – there’s a sense in which God loves all people, including the non-elect – and there’s a sense in which Calvinists have referred to as a special love for the elect only. So a denial of God’s universal love, just flat out saying God does not have any love for the non-elect, that is a hyper-Calvinistic tendency…And it is important to state that most high-Calvinists do want to affirm there’s a sense in which God loves all people. We don’t want to say that high-Calvinists don’t believe God loves all people – they actually do. Now, by their concept of election we can debate with even our moderate Calvinist friends, and for sure our high-Calvinist friends – if they’re going to argue that there’s no atonement – what kind of love is it that God does not even provide an atonement for some people. Then we can argue that – and we should by the way. But it’s just important to note…the distinction between what somebody believes and then what others think is entailed by what somebody believes. That’s a crucial distinction to make. High-Calvinists affirm that God loves everybody. But now they do distinguish ways that God loves everybody, and some of us may think that there are some conflicts there and some inconsistencies, but we’re arguing that’s entailed in their position, not that they themselves are affirming that God does not love everybody.”[96]
Dr. Flowers: “It’s what we call the logical implication.”[97]
Dr. Allen: “Right. Logical implications is the definition of the word entailment in terms of philosophy and logic. Something that entails something means that there’s a logical implication. And that’s where we differ. We would differ with our moderate Calvinist friends, just like they would differ with us, over some of the entailments of our positions.”[98]
Dr. Flowers and Dr. Allen have stated the crucial issue in this controversy when it was said that “some of us may think that there are some conflicts there and some inconsistencies, but we’re arguing that’s entailed in their position.” Logical entailment is precisely what needs to be brought to the forefront in this controversy regarding the discernment of the plausibility of proposed interpretations. If something illogical, inconsistent, incoherent, or contradictory is entailed in a position, belief, or system of beliefs, then it is false. It is false because the canons of reason enable us to discern what is true from what is false. They tell us what is true and what is false. That is their very purpose. And as Dr. Allen states, “that’s where we differ.”
For instance, regarding the dual Calvinist claims of God’s limited provision of atonement for the elect only and that God loves everybody, the entailment here is the incoherence between the two as to the meaning of love. That is, it is incoherent to say God loves everybody and yet only provides atonement for a limited number of elect persons, the corollary of which is that God has predestined those non-elect people he supposedly also “loves” to an eternity separated from himself in punishment for the sin God preordained and caused them to commit. The incoherence is expressed in Dr. Allen’s question, “What kind of love is it that God does not even provide an atonement for some people?” Hence, when a Calvinist claims that “God loves everybody,” for that to be a coherent statement with respect to the definition of ‘love,’ the atonement must be unlimited. To believe the atonement is limited precludes the idea that God loves everybody. In other words, what is logically and morally entailed by the claim that the atonement is limited is that God does not love everybody. What is logically and morally entailed by the claim that God loves everybody is that the atonement must be unlimited.
The same applies to unconditional election. What is entailed in the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election is that God does not love everybody. By what concept of love can it be said that God loves those he has created precisely so that he might predestine them to eternal damnation, punishment, and separation from himself? Therefore, what is entailed in God’s loving everybody is some other definition of election that is not an unconditional divine choice of who will believe and be saved as opposed to those who are not among the unconditionally elect and cannot be saved as understood in Calvinism.
There is indeed a crucial distinction between what someone believes and “what others think is entailed by what somebody believes.” Calvinists believe in Calvinism. But what is entailed in believing Calvinism is acceptance of what is logically and morally incoherent. Calvinists reject what is clearly entailed in their Calvinism because they do not include reason and logic in their biblical interpretation and hermeneutics. That is, they do not take their incoherence, inconsistency, and contradictions as indicative of the invalidity of their interpretations.
Therefore, coming to an agreement on this matter of entailment is the ultimate issue here. Coming to see what is entailed by a propositional or interpretive claim rests upon and involves us in logical and moral reasoning. We must come to agree that entailments that prove to be contrary to sound reason and morality can be correctly identified and cannot therefore be cavalierly and summarily dismissed in the interpretive process. Logical and moral reasoning cannot be disregarded in the interpretative process precisely because they are the very foundation of rational thought, discourse, and exegesis. Whether sound logical and moral reasoning, and what is entailed from these, are considered essential for proper interpretation, is the essence of this controversy. Non-Calvinists insist they are essential for proper interpretation. Calvinists do not. And I submit that the resolution of this controversy requires the Calvinist to acknowledge that logical and moral reasoning and their entailments are reliable indicators of the validity or invalidity of one’s exegetical and interpretive conclusions.
Read the next section – Vincent Cheung, David Allen, Leighton Flowers and Logical and Moral Entailments
Footnotes
[94] Dr. Allen states that hyper-Calvinists deny one or more of five things. The first is “duty faith,” that is, it’s the evangelical duty of all people to believe the gospel. The second is common grace. Thirdly, God’s universal love, that is, God loves all people. Fourth, the well-meant gospel offer, that is, Calvinists say that it’s not God’s intention to offer his salvation or the gospel to all people. On this point, Dr. Allen states, “Hyper-Calvinists teach that the gospel should be preached to everybody, but it should be offered to no one. That’s what makes a person a hyper-Calvinist…” The fifth is that they deny God’s universal saving will, that is, that he has a single will on the matter of salvation and that he wills that all people be saved.
[95] D. A. Carson, The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2000).
[96] David L. Allen with Leighton Flowers, “Atonement for All: 1 Tim. 2:1-6 With David Allen” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9diyt5UVLU/ (28:50 – 31:31). Last accessed 12/14/2025.
[97] Ibid. 31:31 – 31:34
[98] Ibid. 31:35 – 31:56.
The Truth of the Gospel 