Response to "Being Biblical More Than Logical"

Recently on the blog for Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dr. John Hammett argued for the "Four-Point" Calvinist position, denying the "L" of TULIP, which stands for "Limited atonement" (most every Calvinist I know would prefer that this point be known as "Particular redemption," but this throws off the acronymn).

As evident by the title, Dr. Hammett argues that, while "L" has a certain ring of logic, Unlimited atonement (or General redemption) is more consistent with the Bible's teaching.

The following is my response to Hammett's post:

The idea that “L” is simply a logical, rather than a biblical, conclusion, is often asserted by “four-pointers,” but does not ring true. Quite the contrary: I could think of ways to support the “four-point” position that (at least) seem logical, but am convinced, instead, of particular redemption by the biblical text, which presents a necessary connection between the sacrifice made for the [new] covenant people and the benefits certainly enjoyed by the elect on the basis of that sacrifice (Rom 8:32; Heb 10:14).

Even the verses used to argue against “L:” notice how many concepts from outside the verses must be then crammed into the verses in order for them to be used to deny particular redemption. And the actual words found in the verses– words such as “propitiation,” “Savior”– must be either either explained away or turned on their head, while words such as “all” and “world” must assume unusual meanings (in any given context, Scripture does not generally mean to indicate “every person who ever lived throughout history” by these terms).