D. James Kennedy - Union with Christ and Extent of Atonement in Calvin

CHAPTER TwoInterpreting Calvin

To approach the question of John Calvin's understanding of theextent of the atonement it will be necessary first to begin with thebroader question of interpretation. This approach will be neces-sary because nowhere does Calvin deal explicitly with the issue ofthe extent of the atonement as he does other doctrines such aspredestination or the number and nature of the sacraments. Thesituation therefore calls for us to interpret Calvin in the absence ofa full discourse on the subject. We should avoid the temptation toread Calvin as some traditional Calvinists have done, interpretingCalvin's near silence on this issue as an indication that he did notfeel it necessary to address explicitly the issue of the extent of theatonement because, as they claim, limited atonement was such afundamental presupposition for the rest of his theology.

This is certainly the case with both Paul Helm and Roger Ni-cole. Both Helm and Nicole stress that since Calvin holds to a sub-stitutionary view of the atonement, this disallows the possibilitythat he held to a universal atonement.1 They argue that since Cal-vin taught that Christ actually secured salvation on the cross thenonly the following are possible: (1) if Christ died for all of human-ity, then all of humanity must be saved, owing to the fact thatChrist's death actually saves those for whom it was intended; or(2) if not all of humanity is to be saved, then Christ must not have

22 Union With Christ

died for all of humanity. Thus, since Calvin held to a substitution-ary atonement and further held that not all would be saved, thenCalvin must have held to a limited atonement. They argue by in-ference from Calvin's substitutionary doctrine of the atonementthat Calvin necessarily must have held to a doctrine of limitedatonement. Helm admits that Calvin does not present limitedatonement as an explicit doctrine yet states that "Calvin, not beinga universalist, could be said to be committed to definite atonement,even though he does not commit himself to definite atonement."2

Nicole remarks that "it is difficult to imagine that Calvin failed toperceive the necessary link between substitution and definiteatonement, or that, having perceived it, he carried on without re-gard to this matter!"3

We must not assume that Calvin held to limited atonement,simply because he believed that Christ died as our substitute. In-stead we should try to interpret Calvin carefully, paying particu-lar attention to the way he actually uses scripture since it is hisactual interpretation and use of scripture that is at issue here.Therefore, it will be necessary, at least briefly, to investigate thenature of Calvin's interpretive practices. I will outline some of thefeatures of Calvin's hermeneutic for insight into how he actuallyuses scripture. I will make use of the recent studies by David L.Puckett and Thomas F. Torrance as well as the earlier studies byH. Jackson Forstman and Hans-Joachim Kraus.4 With this back-ground as to how Calvin uses scripture, I will examine those pas-sages in Calvin that have a bearing on the question of hisunderstanding of the extent of the atonement. I will pay particularattention to those passages that some have claimed indicate thatCalvin held to particular redemption. In this process it will beshown that Calvin is overwhelmingly universalistic in his under-standing of the extent of the atonement. Furthermore, it will beshown that some interpreters of Calvin project upon Calvin ahermeneutic that was foreign to his actual interpretive practice. Itwill be the conclusion of this chapter that some of those who claimthat Calvin held to a limited atonement make such a claim be-cause they can see no way in which he could hold to a view of the

Interpreting Calvin 23

atonement that is both universal and substitutionary.

Hermeneutical Background

John Calvin has been called the first "modern" biblical scholar.The influence of his early humanist and legal studies had a tre-mendous effect on how he interpreted the Scriptures. As ThomasTorrance explains, his studies had opened his eyes to the obscur-antism and traditionalism of the interpreters of his day.5 His hu-manist training had taught him a respect for ancient texts and thenecessity of interpreting them within their own historical contexts.His legal studies had shown him the convincing and convictingpower of words.6 These two elements came together in his biblicalexegesis. His respect for the text of scripture moved him to strivefor the proper understanding of the text. His belief that the Scrip-tures were a "word" from God compelled him to make theirmeaning clear so that the words of scripture might have theirproper effect upon their hearer.

While it may be an oversimplification to say that Calvin had aparticular hermeneutical practice, or that he consistently followedcertain rules in his interpretation, it is possible to point out certainfeatures or characteristics of his exegesis that shaped, or at timeseven constrained, his exposition. One such characteristic of Cal-vin's exegesis is his conviction that all of scripture comprises aunity.7 Because all of scripture is a revelation from God, and sinceGod is perfect and truthful, then scripture will neither mislead thereader nor will it contradict itself. Calvin's insistence upon theunity of scripture often leads him to depart from what would oth-erwise be the simplest interpretation of some passages. For exam-ple, when Calvin comes to certain passages in scripture, whichseem to indicate that all of humanity will be saved, he feels com-pelled to interpret them in such a way as to make them compati-ble with the doctrine of election, which he believes is clearlytaught throughout scripture. A case in point is his interpretationof Romans 5:18 ("Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation


for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittaland life for all men").8 This passage seems to indicate that graceand forgiveness actually extend to all persons. Being careful to in-terpret this passage in such a way that it not contradict other pas-sages that indicate that not all will experience salvation, Calvininterprets it as follows:

Paul makes grace common to all men, not because it in fact extends toall, but because it is offered to all. Although Christ suffered for the sinsof the world, and is offered by the goodness of God without distinctionto all, not all receive him.9

Calvin prefers to interpret this passage as setting forth a universaloffer of salvation as opposed to interpreting it as teaching a uni-versal application of salvation. Because of his view that all of scrip-ture comprises a unity and cannot contradict itself, Calvin mustinterpret this passage in such a way as to make it compatible withother statements in scripture.

A second feature of Calvin's hermeneutic that is important forour present discussion is his belief that all of scripture, indeed allof revelation, is an accommodation on the part of God to his crea-tures.10 Because we humans are finite and sinful and have nonatural capacity to understand the things of God, God has chosento lower Himself to our level, as it were, in order to communicateHimself to us. In one famous passage from the Institutes Calvindescribes God's accommodation to humanity in revelation interms of a nurse lisping to an infant.

For who even of slight intelligence does not understand that, as nursescommonly do with infants, God is wont in a measure to 'lisp' in speak-ing with us? Thus such forms of speaking do not so much expressclearly what God is like as accommodate the knowledge of him to ourslight capacity. To do this he must descend far beneath his loftiness.11

While scripture conveys true knowledge of God, the reader ofscripture must recognize the accommodated nature of scriptureand resist the temptation to go beyond the limits of knowledgefound in scripture. The above passage reflects a certain humility in


Calvin's approach to theology. Calvin's Institutes, for example,were not intended to provide a system of theology whereby alltheological questions would be answered. Rather, the Instituteswere intended as a guide to reading the Scriptures. Calvin evencautions his readers regarding the use of philosophy not to lettheir thoughts or speech "go beyond the limits of the Word ofGod... For how can the human mind measure off the measurelessessence of God?... Let us then willingly leave to God the knowl-edge of Himself ,"12

This aspect of Calvin's handling of scripture is a sharp contrastto many latter Calvinists. John Owen, for example, who wrotewhat has become the classic English language expression of thedoctrine of particular redemption, displays a strikingly differentattitude with regard to knowledge of God. In his address "To theReader" prefacing The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, Owenbegins by stating that he had spent "more than seven-years' seri-ous inquiry... into the mind of God.13 Such a claim that the mind ofGod is open to human investigation would be unheard of fromthe pen of Calvin.14 Much of Owen's argument in this work isbased upon inference from other doctrines or from what he claimsis known about God. For example, universal atonement is rejected,in part, because it is said to be absolutely incompatible with thedoctrine of election.15 Also, Owen frequently dismisses universalatonement on the grounds that it would indicate a weakness orfailure on God's part. He argues that if any of those for whomChrist died do not actually come to salvation, then this wouldmean that God was not able to do what He purposed. Since Godalways accomplishes what God purposes, and since some peopleare not ultimately saved, then Christ must not have died for thosepeople.16 Throughout The Death of Death, Owen displays an atti-tude toward human knowledge of God and human ability to dis-cern the things of God that is very different from Calvin's. Incontrast to Owen, Calvin was a man who, as William Placher de-scribes, "was willing to leave questions unanswered, 'necessaryconsequences' underived, and apparent inconsistencies sus-pended in tension."17


These first two characteristics of Calvin's hermeneutic are themost important and far reaching elements of his exegetical prac-tice for they underlie his entire approach to scripture. There areother aspects of his exegesis that should also be mentioned. Hans-Joachim Kraus has listed eight principles that he says Calvin fol-lowed in his exegesis.18 The first such principle that Kraus men-tions is that Calvin strove for clarity and brevity. Calvin felt thatone's exegesis should not disguise the text with unnecessary flour-ishes or interpretations. For this reason Calvin did not attempt toargue against every interpretation that had been given for a par-ticular passage. In fact, he generally ignored spurious interpreta-tions except in those cases where he felt that an answer must begiven to a particularly unsound interpretation.19

The next four principles that Kraus finds operative in Calvinare what may be termed "modern" principles of exegesis. For ex-ample, Calvin sought to understand the intention of the author. Inorder to know the intention of the author it is necessary to under-stand the historical, geographical, and institutional circumstancesthat were determinative for the author's situation. Once this back-ground has been established, then the real (or original) meaning ofthe text must be established in order to find the author's intention.Also, Calvin frequently appealed to the context of a passage whenfaced with exegetical problems or differing opinions as to how tointerpret a passage.

The final three principles of Calvin's exegesis enumerated byKraus are less "modern" in tone than those mentioned in the pre-vious paragraph. According to Kraus, Calvin sought to determinethe extent to which exegesis could go beyond the literal wording ofthe text, for example, in seeking the intention of the Lawgiver be-hind the actual wording of the Ten Commandments. Calvin alsosought to recognize metaphorical language and to deal with itproperly. Finally, Kraus mentions the principle of the "scope ofChrist," meaning that Calvin sought to read the Old Testamentwith the intention of finding Christ there.

Each of these principles of interpretation finds its place accord-ing to what passage Calvin is exegeting. For example, when deal-


ing with the Lord's Supper, Calvin appeals to the metaphoricalnature of the language employed by the Evangelists. Wanting tofind a place in Christian teaching for the Ten Commandments, heseeks to find God's intention behind the law.

While the foregoing discussion of Calvin's exegetical methodis far from exhaustive, it should be sufficient to provide someguidance as we endeavour to determine Calvin's view on the ex-tent of the atonement. Therefore, the remainder of this chapterwill be dedicated to an examination of relevant passages fromCalvin's writings that have a bearing on his view on the extent ofthe atonement. The examination of these passages will show howCalvin freely and unhesitatingly employed universal language todescribe the extent of the atonement. I will also deal with the vari-ous arguments that have been offered to advance the claim thatCalvin held to limited atonement. This examination of his writingswill show that he was overwhelmingly universalistic in his under-standing of the extent of the atonement. At the end of this chapterI will identify what I feel is the primary element in the particular-ists' insistence that Calvin must have held to limited atone-ment—their inability to conceive of any circumstance in which theatonement could have been both universal and substitutionary.

Universal Language in Calvin

Since Calvin nowhere deals with the extent of the atonementas a separate doctrine, it will be necessary to search his writingsfor places where he uses either universal or particular languagewith reference to the extent of the atonement. The situation there-fore calls for an inductive examination of the evidence from Cal-vin's writings, taking his statements at face value whereverpossible. While the ultimate objective of this book is to show howCalvin's understanding of union with Christ allowed him to holdto a view of the atonement that was both substitutionary and uni-versal, my conclusion in this chapter that Calvin held to universalatonement will not be predicated on his view on union with


Christ. The discussion in this chapter will show that there is suffi-cient evidence for the claim that Calvin held to universal atone-ment without resorting to deduction from other areas of Calvin'stheology. The subsequent chapters will answer the charge, arrivedat through deduction, that Calvin must have held to limitedatonement because he also held to a substitutionary view of theatonement.

There are many circumstances in which Calvin makes use ofuniversal language with regard to the atonement. Some of theseoccur when he is exegeting scriptural passages that employ uni-versal language. At other times he writes of Christ dying for thewhole world when he is commenting on a passage, which itself,does not make a statement about the extent of the atonement.There are instances where Calvin consciously universalizes pas-sages that later particularists argue indicate that Christ died onlyfor the elect. The concept of universal atonement also provides theground for theological statements about other issues, particularlyregarding the condemnation of the reprobate. Furthermore, thereare places in his polemical writings in which he is in agreementwith his adversaries' use of universal language with regard to theatonement. In the process of analyzing these passages we will seethe freedom with which Calvin employs universal language to de-scribe the atonement.

Unqualified Universal Statements in Calvin

When reading Calvin, one is struck with the sheer number ofunqualified universal statements that he makes regarding theatonement. Many of these are simple assertions that Christ diedfor the redemption of humanity or the salvation of the whole hu-man race. The following are a few examples:

They had already been warned so many times that the hour was ap-proaching in which our Lord Jesus would have to suffer for the redemp-tion of the whole world (en laquello nostre Seigneur lesus devoit souffrirpour la redemption du genre humain)?0

God commends to us the salvation of all men without exception, even


as Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, (nam omnium salussine exceptione nobis a Deo commendatur, quemadmodum pro peccatis totiusmundi passus est Christus)21

It was not a common or small favour that God put off the manifestationof Christ to their time, when he ordained Him by His eternal counsel forthe salvation of the world (quum tamen ilium aeterno suo consilio in mundosalutem ordinasset)... Hence, according to His wonderful wisdom andgoodness, He ordained that Christ should be the Redeemer, who woulddeliver the lost race of man from ruin (qui perditum genus humanum abinteritu eriperet)22

When he says 'the sins of the world,' he extends this kindness indis-criminately to the whole human race (Et quum dicit mundi peccatum, hancgratiam ad totum genus humanum promiscue extendit) that the Jews mightnot think that the Redeemer has been sent to them alone... Now it is forus to embrace the blessing offered to all, that each may make up hisown mind that there is nothing to hinder him from finding reconcilia-tion in Christ if only, led by faith, he come to Him.23

For it is very important for us to know that Pilate did not condemnChrist before he himself had acquitted Him three or four times, so thatwe may learn from it that it was not on His own account that he wascondemned but for our sins. We may also learn how voluntarily he un-derwent death, when he refused to use the judge's favorable dispositionto Him. It was this obedience that made his death a sacrifice of sweetsavour for expiating all sins.24

He must be the redeemer of the world (Redempteur du monde). He mustbe condemned, indeed, not for having preached the Gospel, but for usHe must be oppressed, as it were, to the lowest depths and sustain ourcause, since he was there, as it were, in the person of all cursed ones andof all transgressors (d'autant qu'il estoit la comme en la personne de tousmaundits et de tous transgresseurs), and of those who had deserved eter-nal death (et de ceux qui avoyent merite la mart eternelle). Since, then, JesusChrist has this office, and he bears the burdens of all those who had of-fended God mortally, that is why he keeps silence (D'auant doncque Je-sus Christ ha vest office-Id, et qu'il porte lesfardeaux de tous ceux qui avoyentoffense Dieu mortelle, ent, voyla porquoy is se taist).25

Our Lord Jesus was offered to the world... suffered for all.26


All of the above passages state in one way or another that Christdied for the sins of the whole world. In none of these cases doesCalvin qualify the universal language that he employs.27 There arealso passages in which Calvin presents Christ as providing expia-tion for or bearing the sins and guilt of the whole world.

[Paul] says that this redemption was procured by the blood of Christ, forby the sacrifice of his death all the sins of the world have been expiated(nam sacrificio mortis eius expiata sunt omnia mundi peccata).28

On him was laid the guilt of the whole world.29

God is satisfied and appeased, for he bore all the wickedness and all theiniquities of the world.30

... the death and passion of our Lord Jesus would not have served any-thing, to wipe away the iniquities of the world, except insofar as heobeyed.31

Christ interceded as his [man's] advocate (hie Christum deprecatorem in-tercessisse), took upon himself and suffered the punishment that, fromGod's righteous judgement, threatened all sinners (poenam in se recepisseac luisse quae ex iusto Dei iudicio peccatoribus omnibus imminebat); that hepurged with his blood those evils which had rendered sinners hateful toGod; that by this expiation he made satisfaction and sacrifice to God theFather.32

... [Christ was] burdened with the sins of the world.33

There are a few passages in which Calvin presents Christ asappearing before the judgement seat of God in the place of all sin-ners.

...But though our Lord Jesus by nature held death in horror and indeedit was a terrible thing to Him to be found before the judgement-seat ofGod in the name of all poor sinners (for he was there, as it were, havingto sustain all our burdens), nevertheless He did not fail to humble Him-self to such condemnation for our sakes. (Mais en tant que nostre Seigneurlesus da nature avoit la mart en horreur, et mesmes que ce luy estoit une choseespovanrable de se trouver devant le siege iudidal de Dieu au nom de tonspovres pecheurs.) 34


Let us note well, then, that the Son of God was not content merely to of-fer his flesh and blood and to subject them to death, but He willed infull measure to appear before the judgement seat of God His Father inthe name and in the person of all sinners (au nom et en la personne de touspecheurs), being then ready to be condemned, inasmuch as he bore ourburden (poire d'autant qu'ilportoit nostrefardeau)?5

At this point it would be appropriate to introduce an objectionsometimes raised by particularist interpreters of Calvin. Some par-ticularists have understood Calvin's inclusion of exclusivephrases, such as the phrase "our burdens" in the two passagesabove, to indicate a qualification. They argue that Calvin's use ofthis more exclusive phrase constitutes a qualification of the previ-ous phrase, thus indicating that the entire sentence was meant torefer only to the elect.36 Yet, it may be argued that a particular ref-erence to what Christ has done for "us" need not be understood asexcluding the non-elect. Furthermore, even if Calvin meant to re-fer to the elect alone when he mentions the benefit that we receivefrom Christ when he bears our burdens, there is no indication thathe meant this phrase to be understood as qualifying the previousuniversal phrase. Given the great freedom with which Calvinelsewhere uses universal language to describe the death of Christ,there is no good reason to understand passages such as the twoabove to indicate a conscious decision on the part of Calvin tolimit the death of Christ to the elect alone unless one is predis-posed to qualify all such references oneself. It is apparent from theprevious unqualified statements that Calvin was not so predis-posed.

There are other passages that could be listed in which Calvinspontaneously employs universal language to describe the atone-ment.37 It may be argued that these spontaneous assertions, sev-eral of which appear in his sermons, may simply be the result ofimprecision on Calvin's part. Yet, there are many examples inwhich Calvin consciously employs the idea of universal atone-ment. Several instances of this practice occur in his exegesis ofpassages to which particularists generally appeal when arguingthe case for particular redemption. I am referring to Calvin's


treatment of those passages that speak of Christ dying for"many."

Calvin's Universalizing of the "Many" Passages

When particularists argue for their position, it is frequently thecase that they begin with an appeal to those passages in scripturethat speak of Christ dying for "many," or for "his sheep," or "hisChurch." This is certainly the case with John Owen's argument inThe Death of Death in the Death of Christ. Owen begins the firstchapter of this work by asking for whom it was that Christ died.He appeals to Matthew 20:28 ("the Son of Man came not to beministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom formany") and other similar passages as setting forth the normativescriptural teaching on the question of the extent of the atonement.Owen argues that these passages are properly to be understood asteaching that Christ died only for many people and not for allpeople.38 He works from the assumption that the word "many"was consciously employed by the biblical writers with the inten-tion of excluding some. This argument is frequently employedeven by contemporary particularists.39

When we look at how Calvin handled this and similar pas-sages we find a striking dissimilarity between him and later "Cal-vinists" such as Owen. Passages such as Matt 20:28 providedCalvin with a perfect opportunity to affirm particular redemptionif he had wanted. Instead of interpreting "many" as indicatingthat some were excluded from the atonement, Calvin universal-izes the word "many" by interpreting it to mean "all." The follow-ing passage illustrates how Calvin interprets the evangelist's useof the word "many" as it occurs in Matt 10:28:

'Many' is used, not for a definite number, but for a large number (Mul-tos ponit non definite pro certo numero, sed pro plunbus), in that he setsHimself over against all others. And this is the meaning also in Rom.5:15, where Paul is not talking of a part of mankind but of the wholehuman race (ubi Paulus non de aliqua hominum parte agit, sed totum hu-manum genus complectitur}^


Instead of taking the opportunity to limit the atonement to theelect alone, Calvin universalizes it. Calvin's use of the word "defi-nite" here may be understood to mean "limited," in that Calvinunderstood that the atonement was not made for a limited num-ber of persons as the particularists claim this passage teaches.41

This practice of universalizing the word "many" occurs frequentlyin Calvin's writings. When commenting on Isa 53:12 ("he bore thesins of many") Calvin writes:

He alone bore the punishment of many, because on him was laid theguilt of the whole world. It is evident from the fifth chapter of the Epis-tle to the Romans, that 'many' sometimes denotes 'all' (multos enim proomnibus interdum acdpz).42

Calvin interprets Mark 14:24 ("This is my blood of the new testa-ment, which is shed for many") in the same manner:

The word 'many' does not mean a part of the world only, but the wholehuman race: he contrasts 'many' with 'one/ as if to say that he wouldnot be the Redeemer of one man, but would meet death to deliver manyof their cursed guilt. No doubt that in speaking to a few Christ wishedto make His teaching available to a larger number... So when we cometo the holy table not only should the general idea come to our mind thatthe world is redeemed by the blood of Christ, but also each shouldreckon to himself that his own sins are covered.43

Calvin's exegesis of Heb 9:27 ("Christ was once offered to bear thesins of many") follows the same line of interpretation:

'To bear the sins' means to free those who have sinned from their guiltby his satisfaction. He says many meaning all (Multos dicit pro Omnibus),as in Rom. 5:15. It is of course certain that not all enjoy the fruit ofChrist's death (non omnes ex Christi morte fructum percipere), but thishappens because their unbelief hinders them. The question is not dealtwith here because the apostle is not discussing how few or how manybenefit from the death of Christ, but meant simply that he died for oth-ers, not for himself. He therefore contrasts the many to the one (Itaquemultos uni opponit).**


Once again Calvin universalizes the word "many" to include allsinners, not just the elect.

Special note should be taken of the contrast that Calvin makesin the two previous passages. Calvin understands the biblicalwriters to be contrasting the "many" with the "one" Jesus Christ.Calvin wants his readers to understand the teaching of the biblicalwriters, that it was not for himself that Christ died but for others.In contrast to Calvin's handling of this and the similar passagesalready mentioned, it is usually the practice of particularists tocontrast "many" with "all." A typical particularist interpretationof these two passages would be that the biblical writers intendedto teach that Christ died for "many" sinners as opposed to "all"sinners.45 Contrary to this reading, Calvin interprets these pas-sages to mean that Christ died for others and not for himself. Ac-cording to Calvin, the biblical writers are not contrasting the"many" people from the "few" people. Rather, Calvin is contrast-ing the "many" people from the "one" Christ. One last passage inwhich Calvin universalizes the word "many" is from a sermon onIsa 53:12 ("he bore the sins of many").

That, then is how our Lord Jesus bore the sins and iniquities of many.But in fact, the word 'many' is often as good as equivalent to 'all.' Andindeed our Lord Jesus was offered to all the world. For it is not speakingof three or four when it says: 'God so loved the world, that he sparednot His only Son.' But yet we must notice what the Evangelist adds inthis passage: 'That whatsoever believes in Him shall not perish but ob-tain eternal life.' Our Lord Jesus suffered for all and there is neithergreat nor small who is inexcusable today, for we can obtain salvation inHim. Unbelievers who turn away from Him and who deprive them-selves of Him by their malice are today doubly culpable, for how willthey excuse their ingratitude in not receiving the blessing in which theycould share by faith?46

The five passages above demonstrate a conscious and deliber-ate universalizing of the atonement. Contrary to the practice ofmost particularists, Calvin did not take the opportunity presentedby these verses to interpret the word "many" in such a way as tolimit the atonement only to the elect. The fact that this practice of


universalizing the word "many" occurs so frequently and in dif-ferent contexts (in his commentaries as well as his sermons) goesfar towards demonstrating not just a predisposition towards a be-lief in a universal atonement, but an explicit teaching on the mat-ter.

The Culpability of Unbelievers and the Gospel Offer

The last passage above introduces yet another element in Cal-vin's understanding of the atonement, that unbelievers will beheld doubly culpable for rejecting the one who died for them. Ashas already been shown in the preceding passage, Calvin presentsChrist as having suffered for all. At the end of the passage hepoints to the unbelievers' rejection of this same Christ as increas-ing their culpability. The last sentence of the passage in questionreads as follows:

Unbelievers who turn away from Him and who deprive themselves ofHim by their malice are today doubly culpable, for how will they excusetheir ingratitude in not receiving the blessing in which they could shareby faith?47

Here Calvin points to the fact of the unbelievers' rejection of theChrist who died for them as yet another reason for their condem-nation. Calvin's assumption in this passage is that Christ has in-deed died for those who reject him. Their rejection of the one whodied for them serves to increase their culpability because of theiringratitude.

Calvin's understanding of the content of the gospel offershould be noted at this point, in that he understands that theChrist who is offered in the gospel has died for the one to whomhe is offered, even when he is offered to those who reject him. Thisunderstanding of the gospel offer differs significantly from thatusually held by particularists. Particularists generally claim thatwhat unbelievers are rejecting is the "gospel." The content of thegospel that they are rejecting is not that Christ died for them, butrather, simply that Christ died for sinners. The same concept holdstrue when the believer trusts in the gospel. It is not required that


the convert believe that Christ died for him. It is only required thathe believe that Christ died for sinners.'18 Yet, it is clear from Cal-vin's theology that the offer of salvation is based upon the factthat Christ died for all those to whom salvation is offered, eventhose who reject the gospel. That saving faith consists of the beliefthat Christ has died for "me" personally is found throughout Cal-vin's writings. One such instance is in his commentary on Gala-tians 2:20 ("I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I wholive, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the fleshI live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himselffor me"). Commenting on this verse he writes that:

For me is very emphatic. It is not enough to regard Christ as having diedfor the salvation of the world; each man must claim the effect and pos-session of this grace for himself (Neque parum energiae habet pro me: quianon satis fuerit Christus pro mundi salute mortuum reputare, nisi sibi quisqueeffectum ac possessionem huius gratiae privatim vindicet).*9

In a sermon on the same passage Calvin's words are much moreto the point.

Whereas it is said that the Son of God was crucified, we must not onlythink that the same was done for the redemption of the world: but alsoevery one of us must on his own behalf join himself to our Lord JesusChrist, and conclude, it is for me that he hath suffered.50

Notice that in order to be joined with Christ it is necessary to be-lieve that "it is for me that he suffered." It is not sufficient merelyto believe that Christ suffered for "sinners."

The fact that Calvin grounds the universal offer of salvation ina universal atonement can be seen throughout his writings. Onesuch occurrence is in his commentary on Romans 5:18 ("Then asone man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man'sact of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men"). Calvininterprets this verse as follows:

Paul makes grace common to all men, not because it in fact extends to


all, but because it is offered to all. Although Christ suffered for the sinsof the world, and is offered by the goodness of God without distinctionto all, yet not all receive him. (Communem omnium gratiam facit, quia om-nibus expositae est, non quod ad omnes extendatur re ipsa: nam passus estChristus pro peccatis totius mundi, atque omnibus indifferenter Dei benigni-tate offetur, non tamen omnes apprehendunt).51

Because Calvin believed that only certain people had been eter-nally predestined to salvation, he does not interpret the secondhalf of this verse to mean that all will be saved, as the phrasemight seem to indicate. Neither does he interpret this verse as aparticularist might, by arguing that the "all" should be under-stood as referring only to "all the elect." Rather, Calvin clearlyrecognizes a universal intent in the biblical writer but interpretsthe passage to mean that Christ is offered to all the world. In so do-ing he is able to interpret this verse in such a way as to make itcompatible with the doctrine of election. Yet, his explanation as towhy salvation does not actually extend to all contains an affirma-tion that Christ suffered for the sins of the world. Christ's suffer-ing for the sins of the whole world is presented as the basis for theuniversal offer of salvation to the world. The reason given whysalvation does not extent to all is not that Christ did not die for all.Rather, salvation does not extend to all because not all believe.

Calvin's commentary on Galatians 5:12 also indicates that heunderstood the universal preaching of the gospel as beinggrounded in a universal atonement. He writes:

God commends to us the salvation of all men without exception, evenas Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world (nam omnium salus sineexceptione nobis a Deo commendatur, quemadmodum pro peccatis totiusmundi passus est Christus).52

In the passages cited here it is clear that Calvin understands theuniversal offer of the gospel to be based upon Christ's having diedfor the whole world. Thus, when the unbeliever rejects the gospel,he is rejecting the very one who died for him.


Universal Atonement in Calvin's Polemical Writings

One would expect that in his disagreements with other theo-logians, had Calvin held to limited atonement, he would havetaken the opportunity to argue for his position when combattingthe beliefs of those who held to universal atonement.53 Upon ex-amination however, this proves not to be the case. For example, ithas been widely recognized that in Calvin's refutation of the de-crees from the Council of Trent, Calvin did not disagree with thestatement on universal atonement.54 Indeed, he specifically men-tions the decree dealing with the extent of the atonement andstates that he is not in disagreement with it.55 Calvin quotes thedecree as follows:

Him God set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood for oursins, and not only for ours, but also for the sins of the whole world. . . .But though he died for all, all do not receive the benefit of his death, butonly those to whom the merit of his passion is communicated.56

The wording in this statement is explicitly universal with regardto the atonement, and yet, Calvin indicates no disagreement withit. Had Calvin held to particular redemption, it is difficult to be-lieve that he would not have taken the opportunity to dispute theCouncil of Trent on this point.

There is one particularly significant passage in Calvin's po-lemical writings that goes far to demonstrate that, not only doesCalvin not hold to particular redemption, neither does he hold tocertain theological presuppositions that are at the heart of the par-ticularist position. In the second half of his treatise Concerning theEternal Predestination of God, Calvin defends his doctrine of predes-tination against Georgius, a Sicilian monk who had spoken outagainst Calvin's teaching on predestination. The particular pas-sage in view is rather lengthy and is found near the beginning ofCalvin's refutation of Georgius' position. The passage reads as fol-lows:

Georgius thinks he argues very acutely when he says: Christ is the pro-pitiation for the sins of the whole world; and hence those who wish to


exclude the reprobate from participation in Christ must place them out-side the world (Ergo extra mundum reprobus constituant oportet qui aChristi participatione arcere eos volunt). For this, the common solutiondoes not avail, that Christ suffered sufficiently for all, but efficaciouslyonly for the elect. By this great absurdity, this monk has sought ap-plause in his own fraternity, but it has no weight with me. Wherever thefaithful are dispersed throughout the world, John extends to them theexpiation wrought by Christ's death. But this does not alter the fact thatthe reprobate are mixed up with the elect in the world. It is incontest-able that Christ came for the expiation of the sins of the whole world(Controversia etiam caret, Christum expiandis totius mundi peccatis venisse).But the solution lies close at hand, that whosoever believes in Himshould not perish but should have eternal life (Jn 3.15). For the questionis not how great the power of Christ is or what efficacy it has in itself,but to whom He gives Himself to be enjoyed (Nee vero qualis sit Christivirtus, vel quid per se valeat, nunc quaeritur: sed quibus se fruendum exhi-beat). If possession lies in faith and faith emanates from the Spirit ofadoption, it follows that only he is reckoned in the number of God'schildren who will be a partaker (particeps) of Christ.57

In this passage Calvin is countering Georgius's argument that,since Christ is said to have died for the whole world, then Calvinmust place the reprobate outside of the world for the death ofChrist not to apply to them. My use here of the word "apply" iscarefully chosen. It is clear from Calvin's portrayal of Georgiusthat he understood Georgius to hold to universal salvation, thatthe benefits of the death of Christ will actually be "applied" to allthose for whom Christ died.58 Georgius' position is based upontwo assumptions. First, he understood that Christ had died for thesins of the whole world. Second, he believed that all those forwhom Christ died will actually reap the benefits of that death.Georgius' argument, in essence, is that there can be no reprobatesince salvation will actually be "applied" to all those for whomChrist died. Since Christ is said to have died for the whole worldthen Christ must have died for the so-called reprobate as well,otherwise you must place the reprobate somewhere outside of theworld.

Calvin does not counter Georgius' argument by denyingGeorgius' first premise, that Christ died for the sins of the whole


world. Rather, Calvin counters the argument by attacking Geor-gius' second premise—that all those for whom Christ died will ul-timately be saved. Indeed, Calvin explicitly states in this passagethat it is "incontestable that Christ came for the expiation of thesins of the whole world."59 Were Calvin a particularist, he cer-tainly would have corrected Georgius' belief that Christ died forthe sins of the whole world. Instead, he agrees with this part ofGeorgius' argument but rejects the assumption that all those forwhom Christ died will be saved. Calvin's argument is that not allthose for whom Christ died will ultimately be saved because notall believe and are made partakers of Christ.60

This is a significant passage for it strikes at the very heart ofone of the central assumptions of particularism. Most particular-ists hold to the ex opere operato theory that holds that all those forwhom Christ died must necessarily be saved. This is the centralpoint on which Georgius is arguing and the very point that Calvinis rejecting. It is interesting that both Paul Helm and Roger Nicoleclaim that Calvin affirmed this theory. Helm states that "since forCalvin, all for whom Christ died are saved, and not all men aresaved, it follows that Christ did not die for all men."61 Roger Ni-cole also tries to argue that Calvin held to the ex opere operato the-ory.62 He depicts Calvin as believing that "[w]hat Christ hasaccomplished on the cross is not so much the savability of all hu-mans, as actually to accomplish the salvation of those whom hedoes redeem." His argument for this point is an appeal to the titleof the seventeenth chapter of Book II of the Institutes. This chapter,entitled "Christ rightly and properly said to have merited God'sgrace and salvation for us," is understood by Nicole as indicatingan affirmation by Calvin of the ex opera operato theory. Nicole haseither misread the intention of the chapter or is reading far toomuch into its title. Calvin's stated intention in this chapter is tooppose those who would say that the notion of Christ meritingour salvation is contrary to the notion of the free gift of grace. Inthis chapter Calvin sets out to show that Christ was not a mere in-strument of God's grace but was also its author, as the Apostle Pe-ter teaches (Acts 3:15). Christ, as the author of our salvation, can


rightfully be said to have merited our salvation because his merit-ing was preceded by the express ordination of God as its firstcause, "because in his mere good pleasure He appointed a media-tor to purchase salvation for us."63 Calvin continues in this chapterto prove how it was that Christ actually merited, or purchased,salvation through the shedding of his blood on the cross. No-where in this chapter does he argue or imply that he believes thatall those for whom Christ died will actually be saved, as Nicoleindicates. The context of this chapter indicates that his concernwas to argue that Christ's meriting salvation for us is not contra-dictory to the notion of grace.

I have been unable to find any instance in Calvin's writingswhere he affirms the idea that all those for whom Christ died willultimately be saved. On the contrary, the above passage againstGeorgius constitutes an explicit rejection of this idea. Furthermore,Calvin never appeals to this idea with reference to the actual ap-plication of the atonement. Instead, Calvin makes frequent use ofthe idea that even though Christ died for the sins of the wholeworld, each person must claim possession of Christ for himself.64

Until such a time as proof is brought forth that Calvin did indeedaffirm this theory, the present evidence should cause us to con-clude that Calvin did not believe that all those for whom Christdied must ultimately be saved.

Objections Raised by Particularists

In the preceding discussion I have demonstrated the greatfreedom with which Calvin employs universal language in refer-ence to the extent of the atonement. It has been shown that notonly does Calvin fail to qualify this universal language, but heeven interprets certain passages as being universal that most par-ticularists indicate are clearly and explicitly teaching that Christdied only for the elect. It has also been shown that Calvin has re-jected the ex opere operato theory that is one of the main presuppo-sitions of particularism. Despite this evidence, objections to the


claim that Calvin held to universal atonement have been raised byparticularists. Some have pointed to what they claim are explicitstatements from Calvin in which he limits the atonement to theelect, or hermeneutical practices that indicate that Calvin sharedthe same hermeneutical practices as later particularists. The re-mainder of this chapter will be devoted to answering these objec-tions raised by particularists.

Calvin's Qualification of Certain "All" Passages

One of the most frequently cited arguments that Calvin didnot hold to universal atonement is the occurrence of qualificationsof the word "all" to mean something other than "all the people inthe world" in certain passages in Calvin's writings. Particularistsargue that since Calvin has stated that the word "all" can be quali-fied in this way, then we should interpret those many passage inwhich Calvin states that Christ died for "all" the world to bequalified as well. Let us look at the passages in question to see ifthere is any validity in the particularists' argument. Commentingon I Tim 2:4, ("who desires all men to be saved and to come to theknowledge of the truth") Calvin counters the objection that thispassage precludes the doctrine of election.

They argue, 'If God wills all men without distinction to be saved, then itis not true that by his eternal counsel some have been predestined tosalvation and others to perdition.' There might be some grounds forholding this if in this passage Paul were concerned with individuals (siPaulus hie de singulis hominibus ageret), although even then there wouldstill be a good answer. For although it is true that we must not try to de-cide what is God's secret will by prying into his secret counsel, when Hehas made it plain to us by external signs, yet that does not mean thatGod has not determined secretly with Himself what He wishes to dowith every single man. But I pass from that point which is not relevantto the present context, for the apostle's meaning here is simply that nonation of the earth and no rank of society is excluded from salvation,since God wills to offer the Gospel to all without exception (quia omnibussine exceptione Evangelium proponi Deus velit). Since the preaching of theGospel brings life, he rightly concludes that God regards all men as be-ing equally worthy to share in salvation. But he is speaking of classes


and not of individuals (At de hominum generibus, non singulis personis,sermo est) and his only concern is to include princes and foreign nationsin this number.... There is a duty of love to care a great deal for the sal-vation of all those to whom God extends His call and to testify to this byGodly prayers.65

Calvin's comments on the same verse while refuting Pighius in histreatise Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God is almost identi-cal.

Who does not see that the reference is to orders of men rather than indi-vidual men? Nor indeed does the distinction lack substantial ground;what is meant is not individuals of nations but nations of individuals.At any rate, the context makes it clear that no other will of God is in-tended than that which appears in the external preaching of the Gos-pel-

Upon examination of the above comments on I Tim 2:4 it isnecessary first to understand that Calvin is not dealing with thequestion of the extent of the atonement but with the extent of ac-tual salvation. He is arguing against those who use this verse as aproof text against the doctrine of predestination. Intent on safe-guarding the doctrine of election Calvin interprets this verse to bedealing with the revealed will of God. The revealed will of God,that God intends all to be saved, is the ground for the universalpreaching of the gospel. When he limits the word "all" to referonly to classes and not to individuals, he means that this versetells us nothing about which individuals God, according to his se-cret will, has intended to save.

Special note should be taken of Calvin's usage of the word"individuals." He clearly understands the word to refer to a finiteand particular group of people. He insists in both of these pas-sages that 1 Tim 2:4 is not speaking of those individuals who willactually be saved, but of humanity in general. Calvin explicitlystates that this passage does not speak of the secret will of God,but rather the revealed will of God. Thus, his concern is to showthat the revealed will of God mentioned here does not precludethat in His secret will God has made certain determinations re-


garding each individual. Thus, this verse is not to be understoodas teaching anything about God's actual intention to save certainindividuals. Rather, it should be understood only to be dealingwith the universal offer of salvation.

There is indeed some slight similarity between Calvin's inter-pretation of this verse and certain particularist interpretations ofscripture. When particularists come to those biblical passages thatstate that Christ died for the "world" or for "all," they generallyinterpret those verses to mean that Christ died for "all kinds ofpeople," for "Gentiles and not just Jews," or simply for "all theelect." Yet it should be remembered that, in this context, Calvinmeans only to limit the extent of actual salvation and not the ex-tent of the atonement.

Another qualification of the word "all" comes shortly afterCalvin's comments on 1 Tim 2:4. His comments on 1 Tim 2:5-7("For there is one God, and there is one mediator between Godand Men, the Man Jesus Christ, who gave himself as a ransom forall") come closer to making the particularists point than 1 Tim 2:4examined above. Yet, upon further examination, Calvin's com-ments on this passage cannot be taken to mean that he held to par-ticularism. The passage in question reads as follows:

His meaning is the same in what he goes on to say about the one media-tor. For as there is one God, the Creator and Father of all, so he declares,there is one mediator, through whom access to God is opened to us, andthis Mediator is not given to one nation, or to a few men of a particularclass, but to all, for the benefit of the sacrifice, by which He has expiatedfor our sins, applies to all. Since at that time a great part of the worldhad alienated itself from God, he explicitly mentions the Mediatorthrough whom those who were far off now draw nigh. The universalterm 'all' must always be referred to classes of men but never individu-als (Particula umversalis semper ad hominum genera referri debit, non ad per-sonas). It is as if he said, 'Not only Jews, but also Greeks, not only peopleof humble rank but also princes have been redeemed by the death ofChrist.' Since therefore He intends the benefit of His death to be com-mon to all, those who hold a view that would exclude any from thehope of salvation do Him an injury (Quum itaque commune mortis suaebeneficium omnibus esse velit, miuriam illifaaunt, qui opinione sua quem-piam arcent a spe salutis).67


Upon an initial reading of this passage, it does seem that Calvin islimiting the atonement while alluding68 to the phrase "who gavehimself as a ransom for all." Referring to this phrase Calvin statesthat the "universal term 'all' must always be referred to classes ofmen but never individuals." The particularists' claim at this pointis that Calvin is giving the traditional particularist interpretationof this passage: that Christ did not give himself as a ransom for"all men/individuals," but rather he gave himself for "all kinds ofmen." Yet, a closer inspection of the context will show that this isnot what Calvin meant to communicate.

First, it should be noted that this comment comes under Cal-vin's discussion of verse five and not verse six. When he comes tothe commentary on verse six proper, he makes no mention of theextent of the atonement. In his comments on verse five Calvin isdiscussing the Apostle Paul's argument that the universal offer ofthe gospel is due to the fact that there is one God and One media-tor between God and men. Just previous to the passage quotedabove, Calvin remarks that the Apostle is comparing the onenessof God with the oneness of humanity.

Whatever diversity there was among men at that time, in that manyranks and nations were strangers of faith, Paul reminds believers of theoneness of God, that they may know that there is a bond between themand all men . . . that they may know that those who are under the powerof the same God are not excluded forever from hope of salvation."69

hi the next paragraph, the paragraph under dispute, Calvindiscusses the significance of the "one Mediator." Just as there is aoneness among men because they are under the power of the oneGod, so there is a oneness among men because they all share thesame Mediator. Remember that throughout his comments on thischapter, Calvin is answering the charge that these verses rule outthe doctrine of election. His argument here is that it is because ofthis unity of humanity that the gospel offer is valid, even when of-fered to the reprobate. Humanity is a unity because we all sharethe same God and the same mediator. Of this mediator, Calvinsays that he "is not given only to one nation, or to a few men of a


particular class, but to all."70

Second, we must examine Calvin's actual use of the word "in-dividual^)" in this chapter. Calvin is clearly using the word "in-dividual^)" to speak of a finite class of individuals. In hiscomments on verse four of the same chapter, Calvin makes it clearthat the Apostle is not speaking of which "individuals" God, ac-cording to his secret will, has intended to save. Rather, this chapteris dealing with the revealed will of God. Calvin's use of the word"individual" in this context may be compared to his use of theword "definite" in his commentary on Matt 20:28, that "'many' isused, not for a definite number, but for a large number."71 Calvinapparently is using the word "individuals" to refer to a definite orparticular class of people.

Thirdly, the last sentence in the passage under dispute wouldmake little sense were Calvin to be understood to be teaching par-ticular atonement. Calvin writes that since Christ "intends thebenefit of His death to be common to all, those who hold to a viewthat would exclude any from the hope of salvation do Him an in-jury."72 Calvin's central point in his comments on 1 Tim 2:4-6 isthat the universal offer of salvation is compatible with the doc-trine of election. The universal offer of salvation is a valid offerbecause of the unity of humanity, a unity displayed in the fact thatwe all, elect and reprobate alike, share the same God and the sameMediator. As we saw earlier, Calvin frequently bases the validityof the universal offer of salvation on the fact that Christ has diedfor the whole world.73 This is why God can offer the gospel to thewhole world. If Christ had not intended "the benefit of His deathto be common to all," then some would have been excluded "fromthe hope of salvation." Calvin states that any who would hold tosuch a position would do Christ an injury. Surely Calvin did notmean to include himself in this company.

There are other passages in which Calvin qualifies the word"all," many of which are not even dealing with the atonement,much less the question of the extent of the atonement. Calvin'scommentary on Titus 2:11 is one such passage. In his commentaryon this passage ("For the grace of God has appeared for the salva-


tion of all men") he writes:

He expressly declares that salvation comes to all men, having especiallyin mind the slaves of whom he has just been speaking. He does notmean individuals, but rather all classes of men with their diverse waysof life, and he lays great emphasis on the fact that God's grace has con-descended even to slaves. Since God does not despise even the lowestand most degraded class of men, it would be extremely foolish that weshould be slow and negligent to embrace his goodness. (Nominatim uni-versis communem esse testatur propter servos, de quibus loquutus erat. Intereanon intelligit singulos homines, sed ordines potius notat, aut diversa vitae gen-era. Atque hoc non parvam emphasin habet, quod Dei gratia ad servile usquegenus se demiserit. Nam quum Deus ne infimos quidem et postremae sortishomines despicat, plus quam absurdam foret, nos ad amplexandam eius boni-tatem pigros esse ac desides)7*

The verse in question would seem to indicate that salvation willactually come to all people. As he had done on several occasionsmentioned above, Calvin disallows the interpretation that thisverse deals with the salvation of particular individuals. This versedoes not mean to teach that all will be saved, rather, this versedeals with God's revealed will only. Calvin's only intent in thispassage is to make it clear that the Scriptures do not teach that allwill be saved. Calvin is always careful to ensure that passagessuch as this are not allowed to be interpreted as teaching that allof humanity will be saved. He therefore qualifies the word "all" inhis comments here to make the verse compatible with election. InGod's revealed will God can express the desire that all be saved.Yet, in his secret will, God can will that only his elect actuallycome to salvation. His qualification of the word "all" in this con-text is meant to limit the extent of salvation and not the extent ofthe atonement. None of his comments here can be construed tomean that he understood the extent of the atonement to be lim-ited. Calvin's comments on John 6:45 ("It is written in the proph-ets, 'And they shall all be taught of God'") are to be interpretedsimilarly:

When He says all, it must be limited to the elect, who alone are the true


children of the Church. ... Isaiah shows that the Church is only trulybuilt up when her children are taught by God.75

Calvin frequently used the language of being "taught" by God toindicate what a believer experiences when he or she believes thegospel. Since not all will be saved, then not all will be "taught" byGod. He therefore limits this salvific benefit to the elect alone foronly the elect will be "taught" by God in such a way that they ac-tually come to be partakers of salvation. Commenting on John12:32 ("and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw allmen to myself") Calvin writes:

When He says all it must be referred to the children of God, who are ofhis flock. Yet I agree with Chrysostom, who says that Christ used theuniversal word because the Church was to be gathered from Gentilesand Jews alike.76

Calvin understands this verse to be speaking of the special callingof the Holy Spirit. Since not all are effectually called to salvation,Calvin limits this verse to apply only to the elect. It is only the"drawing" that is being limited by Calvin, not the actual atone-ment of Christ. Commenting on John 17:9 ("I am praying forthem; I am not praying for the world but for those whom thouhast given me, for they are thine") Calvin writes:

But we are commanded to pray for all, and Christ afterward prayed forall indiscriminately, 'Father forgive them; for they know not what theydo.' I reply, the prayers which we utter for all are still limited to God's elect.We ought to pray that this and that and every man may be saved and soembrace the whole human race, because we cannot yet distinguish theelect from the reprobate.77

Calvin's comments on this verse refer to the believers' prayers of-fered to God for the salvation of the lost. Calvin's argument isthat, while God has elected only some people to salvation, we arecalled to pray for all people for we do not know who among themare actually the elect of God. This verse and Calvin's commentshave no bearing on the question of the extent of the atonement.78


None of the four passages just mentioned have any bearing onthe question of Calvin's view on the extent of the atonement. Theyhave only to do with the extent of the actual salvation of individu-als. There is yet one more passage in which Calvin qualifies theword "all" that must be addressed. The passage in question isfrom his commentary on I John 2:2 ("and he is the propitiation forour sins, and not for our sins only but also for the sins of thewhole world"). Calvin's comments on this passage are frequentlycited as being explicit evidence that he held to particular redemp-tion.79 The passage in question reads as follows:

He put this in for amplification, that believers might be convinced thatthe expiation made by Christ extends to all who by faith embrace theGospel. But here the question may be asked as to how the sins of thewhole world have been expiated. I pass over the dreams of the fanatics,who make this a reason to extend salvation to all the reprobate and evento Satan himself. Such a monstrous idea is not worth refuting. Thosewho want to avoid this absurdity have said that Christ suffered for thewhole world but effectively only for the elect. This solution has com-monly prevailed in the schools. Although I allow the truth of this, Ideny that it fits this passage. For John's purpose was only to make thisblessing common to the whole Church. Therefore, under the word 'all'he does not include the reprobate, but refers to all who would believeand those who were scattered through the various regions of the earth.For, as is meet, the grace of Christ is really made clear when it is de-clared to be the only salvation of the world.80

The key to understanding the above passage is to recognizethe interpretation of this verse against which Calvin is arguing.He speaks of certain "fanatics" who take 1 John 2:2 to mean thatthe entire world, even Satan, will be saved because the sins of thewhole world have been expiated. Curt D. Daniel, I believe, hascorrectly identified these "fanatics" as being those, like Georgius,who had used this verse to argue that the whole world would besaved.81 I have already discussed Calvin's refutation of Georgius'argument on this verse in Calvin's Concerning the Eternal Predesti-nation of God. In his argument with Georgius Calvin does not dis-pute the point that Christ died for the whole world. However, he


does dispute Georgius' conclusion that since Christ died for thewhole world, then this means that the whole world will be saved.Thus, as he did in his refutation of Georgius, Calvin is guardingagainst this same interpretation here.

The second thing we should notice from this passage, is thatCalvin understands this verse to be dealing with the application ofsalvation. He is arguing against those who wish to extend salvationto all the reprobate, even to Satan himself. Those against whom heis arguing apparently say that since Christ died for the sins of thewhole world, and since the reprobate, and presumably, even Sa-tan, should be included in this number, then all those for whomChrist died will be saved, including Satan. Calvin says that theApostle John's purpose in this passage was to teach us that thisblessing, salvation, should be common to the whole church, thosewho actually believe the gospel. The blessing of salvation does notcome automatically to all those for whom Christ died. The bless-ing of salvation comes only to those who believe. The hermeneuti-cal danger, for Calvin, is not that some might interpret this verseas teaching that Christ died for the sins of the whole world.Rather, the hermeneutical danger is that some have interpretedthis verse to indicate that all the world will actually be saved.

Thus, the first sentence in this passage should be understoodalong the following lines lines. When Calvin says that the expia-tion of Christ extends to all who by faith believe the gospel, he shouldbe understood to mean that the expiation actually comes to be ap-plied to all those who believe the gospel. Calvin uses the word"extend" in a similar way in his commentaries on Romans 5:18and John 12:52. Curt Daniel relates Calvin's comments on 1 John2:2 above to his comments on Rom 5:18 and John 12:52 where Cal-vin denies that the atonement "extends to all" because "not all re-ceive Him."82 In the passage above as well as the passages fromhis commentaries on Romans and John, Calvin is dealing with thequestion of the actual application of salvation. He is not dealingwith the question of the extent of the atonement. That Calvin un-derstood 1 John 2:2 to be dealing with the application of salvation isthe best interpretation of this passage given those against whom


he was arguing—those who claimed that the mere fact of Christdying for someone was sufficient to save them.83

Furthermore, to those who appeal to this "explicit" referenceas evidence that Calvin did not hold to universal atonement,84 itwould be easy to point to examples of Calvin's explicit affirma-tions of universal atonement. This same passage is at issue in hisrefutation of Georgius in Concerning the Eternal Predestination ofGod. In that instance, not only does Calvin not dispute Georgius'claim that Christ died for the whole world but he explicitly af-firms it when he says that "it is incontestable that Christ came forthe expiation of the sins of the whole world."85

It is quite clear from the passages cited above that Calvin didsometimes limit the word "all" to refer to "classes of men" as op-posed to "all men" as is indeed similar to later particularist inter-pretations of scriptural passages that use universal language tospeak of the death of Christ. It needs to be asked why it is thatparticularists appeal to such passages as indicating that Calvinheld to limited atonement. The reason is simple. Particularists takeas normative the biblical passages that speak of Christ dying for"many" or for "his sheep" or "his Church." They interpret thesepassages as teaching that Christ died only for "many" rather than"all" people. When particularists come to those biblical passagesthat speak of Christ dying for the "world" or for "all," they inter-pret them to conform to what they have already determined to bethe normative scriptural teaching, that Christ died only for"many." Thus, the passages that teach that Christ died for "all"are interpreted to mean that Christ died for "all sorts of people" or"all of the elect." By appealing to the passages in Calvin where hequalifies the word "all," particularists believe they have found acommonality between their own interpretation of Scripture andCalvin's. The particularists' argument regarding the above pas-sages from Calvin is that they demonstrate a predisposition inCalvin to limit the word "all" to refer to "all classes of people" or"people of all sorts," rather than "all people indiscriminately."This appeal is, in essence, a claim that Calvin shared their herme-neutic. It is obvious that this appeal is meant to create ambiguity


with regard to Calvin's meaning in those many places where heemploys universal language to speak of the atonement.

This is obviously the situation in the case of Roger Nicole.86

Not only does Nicole list some of these passages as proof againstthe claim that Calvin held to universal atonement, he draws atten-tion to the fact that, in many other passages where Calvin usesuniversal language to describe the extent of the atonement, thereare also to be found particular references to what Christ has done"for us" or for "his people."87 Nicole's argument is that the pres-ence of limiting phrases such as these should be understood asqualifying Calvin's own use of universal language when describ-ing the extent of the atonement. The larger implication is quiteclear. If Calvin is predisposed to qualify the word "all" when it appearsin scripture, then it is reasonable to interpret those places where Calvinhimself uses the word "all" as meaning something other than "all" whenhe is speaking of the extent of the atonement.

It needs to be asked whether this is a reasonable conclusionfrom the passages discussed above in which Calvin qualifies theword "all." Even if we grant for the sake of argument that Calvinwas predisposed to qualify the word "all" when it appears inScripture, upon what grounds do we make the leap that this givesus license to qualify Calvin's own use of universal language whendescribing the atonement? It is one thing to find in Calvin a pre-disposition to occasionally qualify the word "all" when it occursin scripture. It is quite a different matter to state that Calvin'squalification of the word "all" in scripture should lead us to readCalvin's own use of the word "all" as being similarly qualifiedwherever it appears in his own writings. Doing such is all themore absurd when one considers how Calvin elsewhere freelyuses universal language to describe the atonement. Not onlyshould we resist the temptation to find in Calvin a biblical herme-neutic that we ourselves may employ, we should also resist thegreater temptation of reading Calvin's own words by means ofthat hermeneutic. Such a leap is both unfounded and absurd. Itshould further be noted that to read consistently every instancewhere Calvin uses the words "all" and "world" as meaning only


part of the world would lead us to an even greater absurdity.Also, in answer to the charge that Calvin was predisposed to

limiting the word "all" with reference to the extent of the atone-ment, we should remember Calvin's explicit teaching on universalatonement in his argument with Georgius and his interpretationof those passages that speak of Christ dying for "many." Contraryto the practice of particularists, Calvin extends the meaning of theword "many" to include "all." It is clear that Calvin did not sharethat part of the particularist hermeneutic that understands thesepassages to be teaching that Christ died only for "many" and notfor "all." If Calvin were indeed predisposed to understand theword "all" to be limited in this way, then why does he universal-ize these passages, which, according to the particularist position,are clearly limited to begin with?88 It should be concluded that thepassages considered above cannot reasonably be employed to ar-gue that Calvin shared the same biblical hermeneutic as later re-formed theologians. Furthermore, while it is true that Calvin didsometimes limit the word "all," he generally did so in order tolimit the extent of actual salvation and not the extent of theatonement.

Calvin's Disagreement with Heshusius

There is one final quotation from Calvin that needs to be ad-dressed. The passage in question comes in his treatise againstTileman Heshusius on the question of the true presence of Christin the supper. Heshusius, a Lutheran, held to the view of consub-stantiation; that the body and blood of Christ are truly present inand with the supper, even when taken by unbelievers. Calvin ar-gued that faith was necessary for a person to receive any spiritualbenefit from the supper. The particular section of this treatisewhich has a bearing on the question of Calvin's view on the extentof the atonement reads as follow:

But the first thing to be explained is how Christ is present with unbe-lievers, to be the spiritual food of souls, and in short the life and salva-tion of the world. And he adheres so doggedly to the words, I shouldlike to know how the wicked can eat the flesh which was not crucified


for them, and how they can drink the blood which was not shed to ex-piate their sins? (scire velim quomodo Christi carnem edant impii, pro quibusnon est crucifixa, et quomodo sanguinem bibant, qui expiandis eorum peccatisnot est effusus.) I agree with him that Christ is present as a strict judgewhen his supper is profaned. But it is one thing to be eaten, and anotherto be a judge.... Christ, considered as the living bread and the victimimmolated on the cross, cannot enter any human body which is devoidof his spirit.89

What Calvin is arguing against in this passage is the idea that thebody and blood of Christ are locally present in the elements of thesupper. Calvin objected to a local presence in the supper becauseit would make all of the participants partakers of Christ even ifthey were unbelievers. It was the idea that unbelievers partook ofChrist in the supper that most disturbed Calvin. This is so be-cause, for Calvin, to be a partaker of Christ is to have salvation.Only believers have salvation in Christ, and therefore, only be-lievers partake of Christ in the supper. Indeed, it is because oftheir faith that believers partake of Christ in the eucharist. Calvinsays that "we eat Christ's flesh in believing, because it is madeours by faith, and that this eating is the result and effect of faith."90

If unbelievers truly partake of the body of Christ in the supper,then this means that the flesh of Christ is not vivifying. Calvin willnot allow this.

The portion of the above quotation that is offered as evidencethat Calvin held to particular redemption is where it is asked: "Ishould like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh which wasnot crucified for them, and how they can drink the blood whichwas not shed to expiate their sins?" It is alleged that Calvin's ar-gument is that unbelievers do not partake of Christ in the supperbecause Christ did not die for them. Is this truly what is being as-serted here or is there perhaps a better interpretation of this pas-sage?

Curt D. Daniel has offered an explanation for this passagewhich I believe is the best interpretation of Calvin's intendedmeaning here. Daniel draws attention to the phrase "I should liketo know...," which introduces the sentences in question. Daniel


compares this phrase to other instances where it occurs. In onesuch instance Calvin is also discussing the Lord's supper when hesays "I should like to know from them how long they (the wicked)retain it (the true body of Christ) when they have eaten it."91 Dan-iel correctly notes that the phrase "I should like to know" intro-duces an idea that Calvin is clearly rejecting, that the wickedactually eat and retain Christ in the supper. This quotation fromthe Institutes is a rhetorical device and is clearly not meant to con-vey Calvin's position on the issue. To the contrary, the phrase in-troduces a concept with which he is in disagreement, hi the quotefrom the Institutes, what Calvin is rejecting is the claim that thewicked eat and retain Christ. In the passage from the Treatise, Cal-vin is rejecting what is presumably the claim by Heshusius, thatthe wicked "eat the flesh which was not crucified for them." Yet, itshould be noted that Heshusius was a Lutheran and thus did notdeny that Christ died for the whole world. How then are we toexplain Calvin's comments given this fact?

Daniel's explanation for this centers around the fact that forCalvin, true saving faith consists of the person's belief that Christhas died for him. I have already discussed Calvin's understandingof the content of saving faith earlier in this chapter. Yet, it will bebeneficial to see some of the quotations to which Daniel appeals inorder to make his point. One passage from one of Calvin's ser-mons on Isaiah is a very clear statement that saving faith consistsof the belief that Christ died for the person believing:

For it is not enough that Jesus Christ suffered in His person and wasmade a sacrifice for us; but we must be assured of it by the Gospel; wemust receive that testimony and doubt not that we have righteousnessin Him, knowing that He has made satisfaction for our sins.92

Calvin's comments on Mark 14:24 are even more explicit on thispoint:

So when we come to the holy table not only should the general ideacome to our mind that the world is redeemed by the blood of Christ, buteach should reckon to himself that his own sins are covered.93


Note that in the second quotation Calvin states that Christ has re-deemed the whole world. Yet, it is insufficient merely to believethat Christ died for the world. Saving faith is believing that Christhas indeed died for oneself. In this particular passage, true partak-ing of Christ requires believing that Christ has died for the be-liever.

Calvin's understanding of saving faith is key to Daniel's inter-pretation of the disputed passage from the treatise against Heshu-sius. Heshusius believed that the wicked partook of the body andblood of Christ even in the absence of saving faith, in the absence offaith that Christ died for them.94 Daniel paraphrases the disputedpassage from the Treatise as follows: "I should like to know howthe wicked can eat the flesh of Christ if they do not believe thatChrist was crucified for them."95 Daniel's point is that it is Heshu-sius who holds the belief that a person can truly partake of Christin the supper in the absence of faith that Christ died for him.

Conclusion

We have seen in this chapter how Calvin freely utilizes uni-versal language when describing for whom it was that Christdied. His use of universal language to describe the atonement isfound throughout his sermons, his commentaries, as well as theInstitutes. There are several explicit statements where Calvin setsforth the belief that Christ died for the whole world, hi his re-marks against Georgius, for example, Calvin states that "it is in-contestable that Christ came for the expiation of the sins of thewhole world."96 It should also be remembered that in this samepassage Calvin rejects the ex opere operato theory that is at the veryheart of the particularist's position. Calvin also interprets thosepassages that speak of Christ dying for "many" to mean that hedied for all. This practice of Calvin's is exactly contrary to whatone would expect were he a particularist. While some have drawnattention to those few places where Calvin seems to be espousingparticularism, these can easily be explained. Even if the explana-


tions that I have given for these passages are deemed to be inade-quate, one must weigh these few passages against the far morenumerous explicit universal statements. It thus seems reasonableto conclude from the evidence given that Calvin held to universalatonement rather than limited atonement.

Despite evidence such as that given in this chapter, there aremany who still refuse to consider the possibility that Calvin mayhave held to a universal atonement. Many admit to knowledge ofthe numerous universal passages cited in this chapter and yet re-fuse to waver in their opinion that Calvin was a particularist.97 Is itmere loyalty to the person for whom the Calvinist system is namedthat creates such steadfast claims that Calvin was a particularist?Such an answer would be far too simplistic.98 No one, particularistor otherwise, looks to Calvin as if he were some kind of ReformedPope. There must be some other explanation for their unbendingopinion that Calvin was a particularist.

It is frequently the case in the arguments of those wishing toclaim Calvin as a particularist that an appeal is made to other ar-eas of Calvin's theology, which presumably, rule out the possibil-ity that Calvin could have taught universal atonement. WilliamCunningham, for example, argues that Calvin's doctrine of elec-tion leaves no room for a universal atonement, for this would ad-mit to an anomaly in God's sovereign government of the worldsince many of those for whom Christ is said to have died wouldnot ultimately be saved.99

A far more common appeal is made to the fact that Calvinheld to a substitutionary view of the atonement. It is argued thatthe mere concept of substitution rules out the possibility that Cal-vin held to universal atonement. In arguing this point Roger Ni-cole remarks that "it is difficult to imagine that Calvin failed toperceive the necessary link between substitution and definiteatonement, or that, having perceived it, he carried on without re-gard to this matter!"100 It is the assumption of most particulariststhat to hold to a view of the atonement that is both substitutionaryand universal requires one also to hold that all will ultimately besaved. Otherwise, it is argued, one must deny the saving efficacy


of the death of Christ. J. I. Packer very clearly expresses this opin-ion when he writes:

If we are going to affirm penal substitution for all without exception wemust either infer universal atonement, or else, to evade this inference,deny the saving efficacy of the substitution for anyone; and if we are go-ing to affirm penal substitution as an effective saving act of God wemust either infer universal salvation or else, to evade this inference, re-strict the scope of the substitution, making it a substitution for some, notall.101

The concern that a universal atonement necessitates a universalsalvation is specifically mentioned by Paul Helm as a reason whyit cannot be said that Calvin taught universal atonement. Helmadmits that Calvin does not present limited atonement as an ex-plicit doctrine. Yet/ he states that "Calvin, not being a universalist,could be said to be committed to definite atonement, even thoughhe does not commit himself to definite atonement."102

The general argument of those who hold that Calvin was aparticularist is as follows: since Calvin taught that Christ died asour substitute, and since he clearly taught that not all would besaved, then it must necessarily follow that he held to limitedatonement. The two premises in this argument should be affirmedby all who have read Calvin, yet, it must be asked whether theconclusion given necessarily follows from the premises. Is it truethat the concept .of substitution necessitates a limited atonement?Could it be that Calvin's understanding of substitution differedfrom the later Reformed concept of substitution? It does seem tobe true that the particularist's inability to see any situation inwhich the atonement could be universal as well as substitutionaryis central to their claim that Calvin could not have taught univer-sal atonement. The remainder of this book will be devoted toshowing how Calvin's concept of substitution, rooted in his un-derstanding of the believer's union with Christ, allowed him tohold to a view of the atonement that was both universal and sub-stitutionary.

Two passages from Calvin's writings will serve as an intro-


duction to the theme of union with Christ and its connection toCalvin's understanding of substitution. Introducing them at thisjuncture may help the reader to begin thinking about how Calvinviewed our connection to Christ as being key to our receiving thesalvific benefits of his death. The first passage is found at the be-ginning of the third book of the Institutes. In book three Calvin isdealing with the question of how we obtain the grace of Christand the benefits of his death. In the very first section of the firstchapter of book three Calvin has this to say:

And the first thing to be attended to is, that so long as we are withoutChrist and separated from him, nothing which he suffered and did forthe salvation of the human race is of the least benefit to us (quandiu extranos est Christus, et ab eo sumus separati, quicquid in salutem humani generispassus est ac fecit, nobis esse inutile nulliusque momenti.) To communicateto us the blessings which he received from the Father, he must becomeours and dwell in us (in nobis habitare). Accordingly, he is called ourHead, and the first-born among many brethren, while, on the otherhand, we are said to be ingrafted (inseri) into him and clothed (induere)with him, all which he possesses being, as I have said, nothing to us un-til we become one with him (coalescimus).m

Notice the importance that Calvin places on our union withChrist. When we are separated from Him, all that he has suffered"for the salvation of the human race" is of no benefit to us. Calvingoes on to say that in order for the benefits of Christ's suffering tobe communicated to us, we must be engrafted into Christ so thathe dwells in us. This passage contains a clear statement that Christsuffered for the whole world. Yet, the fact that Christ has sufferedfor the whole world does not make his suffering effectual for thewhole world as the particularist's argument would require. Ac-cording to Calvin, we must still come to possess the benefits of hisdeath in some way. We come to possess the benefits of Christ'sdeath only when "we become one with him." In this passage theactual application of salvation is very clearly linked to our unionwith Christ.104

The second passage that I will mention as an introduction tothe theme of union with Christ is found in Calvin's refutation of


Georgius in his treatise Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God.I have already dealt with the explicit affirmation of universalatonement found in this passage. What is important about thispassage, insofar as concerns the question of Calvin's understand-ing of union with Christ is the "solution" which he gives to Geor-gius' argument. The particular portion of Calvin's answer towhich I refer reads as follows:

But the solution lies close at hand, that whosoever believes in Himshould not perish but should have eternal life (Jn 3.15). For the questionis not how great the power of Christ is or what efficacy it has in itself,but to whom He gives Himself to be enjoyed (Nee vero qualis sit Christivirtus, vel quid per se valeat, nunc quaeritur: sed quibus se fruendum exhi-beat). If possession lies in faith and faith emanates from the Spirit ofadoption, it follows that only he is reconed in the number of God's chil-dren who will be a partaker (particeps) of Christ.105

Earlier I showed how this passage constitutes a rejection by Calvinof the ex opere operate theory. Georgius was arguing that all theworld would be saved since Christ had died for all the world.Calvin counters Georgius' argument by stating that it is the pres-ence of faith in believers that separates them from the reprobate.Yet, he says something beyond this. He states that the death ofChrist is not efficacious in itself but its efficacy depends upon "towhom He gives Himself to be enjoyed." The death of Christ be-comes effectual when we are joined to Christ himself. Not all willbe God's children as Georgius has argued. Only those who are ac-tually made "a partaker of Christ" will come to share in the bene-fits of the death of Christ.

In both of these passages union with Christ is presented as be-ing central to making the death of Christ efficacious in the life ofthe believer. This statement should not be misunderstood as tak-ing anything away from the centrality of faith which Calvin andall the reformers stressed. What this statement is intending tocommunicate is that Calvin understood union with Christ as be-ing the means by which the Holy Spirit communicates to the be-liever the salvific benefits found in the person of Christ. Calvin's


emphasis in his concept of union with Christ is that even thoughChrist became the substitute for the sins of the whole world, onlythose who are ingrafted into Christ and made one with him willcome to share in the salvific benefits of their substitute, JesusChrist. In the next chapter I will begin my examination of Calvin'sconcept of union with Christ and the impact this concept has onhis understanding of the atonement. I will begin this process byexamining Calvin's concept of the incarnation, the union of Godand man in the person of Jesus Christ.

Notes

1. Paul Helm, Calvin and the Calvinists (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust,1982): 43-44; and Roger Nicole, "John Calvin's View of the extent of theAtonement," Westminster Theological Journal 47 (Fall 1985): 218.

2. Helm, Calvin and the Calvinists, 18.

3. Nicole, "John Calvin's View," 224.

4. David L. Puckett, John Calvin's Exegesis of the Old Testament (Louisville:Westminster John Knox Press, 1995). Thomas F. Torrance, The Hermeneuticsof John Calvin (Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1988). H. JacksonForstman, Word and Spirit: Calvin's Doctrine of Biblical Authority (Stanford,Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1962). Hans-Joachim Kraus, "Calvin's Exe-getical Principles" Interpretation 31 (January 1977): 8-18. This is a translationof "Calvin's exegetische Prinzipien," Zetischrift Fur Kirchengeschichte 79(1968): 329-41, translated by Keith Crim.

5. Torrance, Hermeneutics, 101. Torrance presents Calvin as the "father of mod-ern theology" and biblical exposition (61) because of his intense interest inwhat the texts meant in their original contexts and to their original hearers.See Torrance also for a detailed account of the humanist and legal influencesupon Calvin. '

6. See William Placher's chapter on "Calvin's Rhetoric of Faith" in his The Do-mestication of Transcendence (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996),52-53, for a concise but measured opinion on the influence Calvin's human-istic and legal training had upon him.


7. This characteristic of Calvin's hermeneutic is acknowledged by Puckett,Torrance, and Forstman. Forstman has an overall negative opinion of therole that Calvin's understanding of the unity of scripture played in his exe-gesis. Frostman feels that Calvin's antiquated concept of scripture forcedhim into compromising too frequently his historical method. He accusesCalvin of employing "rather devious techniques and notions in order tomaintain his theory" of the unity of scripture (Word and Spirit, 123). Pucketthas a more measured opinion of this presupposition of Calvin's. Puckettpoints out that Calvin tried to hold to both a historical exegesis as well as abelief in the unity of scripture. Puckett explains that Calvin attempted to in-terpret scripture historically but did so in such a way as not to compromisethe unity of scripture (John Calvin's Exegesis, 43).

8. All Scriptural references are from the Revised Standard Version, (Division ofChristian Education of the National Councill of the Churches of Christ in theUnited States of America, O.T. copyright 1952, N.T. copyright 1946).

9. Calvin, Comm., Rom 5:18, New Testament Commentaries, ed. D. W. and T. F.Torrance, 12 vols (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1959-1972),vol. 8, N.T.C. 5.78. All Latin references to Calvin's New Testament commen-taries are from loannis Calvini in Novum Testamentum Commentarii, ed. A.Tholuck, 7 vols., (Amsterdam: Berolini, 1833-34), hereafter N.T.C. All refer-ences to the Latin edition of the Institutes are from Calvin, loannis Calvini Op-era Selecta, ed. P. Earth and G. Niesel, 2d ed. (Munich: Chr. Kaiser,1926-1936), hereafter O.S. All other Latin and French references are fromloannis Calvini Opera cjuae Supersunt Omnia, ed. W. Baum, E. Cunitz, and E.Reuss, 59 vols., Corpus Reformatorum, vols. 29-87, (Brunswick: C. A. Schwet-schke and Son, 1863-1900), hereafter C.O.

10. Calvin frequently employs this idea in defense of the concept of the unity ofscripture discussed above. When seemingly conflicting ideas are expressedin the Old and New Testaments, Calvin frequently appeals to the accommo-dated nature of revelation as an explanation. One way he would do this isby suggesting that God had accommodated His language to the Jewish peo-ple for they were not yet ready for the deeper truths revealed in Christ. The"fault" then lies neither in the Scriptures nor in God's communication, butrather in the readiness of the particular audience for the message.

11. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford L.Battles, 2 vols., Library of Christian Classics Series nos. 20-21 (London: S. C.M. Press, 1960), 1.31.1., O.S. 4.1.


12. Calvin, Institutes, 1.13.21., O.S. 3.136. This particular feature of Calvin's her-meneutic actually poses a problem for the present work. Calvin's reluctanceto delve into the mysteries of God extends to the question of the exact natureof the believer's union with Christ. Calvin's failure to explain completelyhow union with Christ accounts for both the forensic as well as the experien-tial elements of salvation creates a problem for later Reformed theology.(See: William Borden Evans, "Imputation and Impartation: The Problem ofUnion With Christ in Nineteenth Century American Reformed Theology"[Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt University, 1996]). While Calvin's exact understand-ing of the nature of our union with Christ is not unimportant for the presentdiscussion, of greater importance will be his understanding of the roleplayed by union with Christ in the application of the benefits of the death ofChrist to the believer.

13. John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (Edinburgh: Johnstone &Hunter, 1852; repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1967), 37, italicsadded.

14. This can be seen especially when Calvin is writing about the doctrine of elec-tion. Throughout Book 3, chapters 21-24 of the Institutes Calvin frequentlycautions his readers not to attempt to search the secret counsel of God's wis-dom and purpose in election. In Institutes 3.21.4 his rebuke of those who at-tempt to seek out the secret counsel of God concerning election is quiteharsh: "By inquiring out of the proper way, I mean puny man endeavors topenetrate to the hidden recesses of the divine wisdom, and goes back evento the remotest eternity, in order that he may understand what final deter-mination God has made with regard to him. In this way he plunges head-long into an immense abyss, involves himself in numberless inextricablesnares, and buries himself in the thickest darkness," O.S. 4.373.

15. Owen works with the assumption that the doctrines of election and particu-lar atonement stand or fall together. He routinely refers to those who rejectlimited atonement as Arminians because he can imagine no situation inwhich the atonement could be both substitutionary and universal.

16. This way of thinking permeates Owen's work. One particular reference canbe found in his preface "To the Reader" (Death of Death, 37). A similar thingis seen in his discussion of the question whether God loves the world(210-12). He concludes that God can have no general love for the worldsince God's love is not completed in all. It is completed only in the elect. Tosay that God loves the entire world would mean that there is a weakness inGod, since his love would not actually result in a favorable end for many


whom He is said to love. The opinion put forth by Owen, that if some ofthose for whom Christ died are ultimately lost indicates a failure in God'sgovernment of the world, is shared by William Cunningham and is given byhim as a reason why Calvin could not have held to universal atonement (TheReformers and the Theology of the Reformation [Edingburgh: T. & T. Clark,1862]), 399.

17. Placher, Domestication of Transcendence, 53.

18. Kraus, "Calvin's Exegetical Principles," 329-41.

19. In the preface to his commentary on the Psalms, Calvin explains that enter-ing into controversies in his commentaries would detract from the clarity ofhis exposition. When he does offer arguments against others' interpretations,he does so only when there is reason to believe that "there was reason to fearthat by being silent respecting them, I might leave my readers in doubt andperplexity" (preface to Comm on the Psalms, 7, C.O. 31.18).

20. Calvin, The Deity of Christ and Other Sermons, trans, by Leroy Nixon (GrandRapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1950), 55, C.O. 46.836.

21. Calvin, Comm., Gal 5:12, N.T.C. 6.68.

22. Calvin, Comm,, 1 Pet 1:20, N.T.C. 7.186.

23. Calvin, Comm. John 1:29, N.T.C. 3.21.

24. Calvin, Comm., John 19:12, N.T.C. 3.343.

25. Calvin, The Deity of Christ and Other Sermons, 95, C.O. 46.870. This quotationis interesting in that in it Calvin makes no distinction between who thetransgressors were or who was deserving of eternal death. While it is truethat the elect were at one time transgressors and deserving of eternal death,there is nothing here to indicate that Calvin had only the elect in mind. Fur-thermore, appealing to the fact that Calvin switches to more exclusive lan-guage ("for us" and "our cause") and arguing that he had in mind only theelect, may be countered with the fact that he then continues by saying thatChrist was there "in the person of all cursed ones and of all transgressors,and of those who had deserved eternal death." Surely the elect were not theonly transgressors deserving of eternal death. In this passage Calvin canonly reasonably be understood to have been writing about what Christ haddone for the whole human race.


26. Calvin, Sermons on Isaiah's Prophecy of the Death and Passion of Christ, ed. andtrans, by T. H. L. Parker (London: James Clarke and Co., 1956), 141, C.O.35.680.

27. There are some who argue that in some of these passages Calvin also usesmore particular language such as Christ's being "oppressed for us." It is ar-gued that this more specific language, referring to Christians, indicates thetrue extent of whom Calvin was speaking. This objection will be dealt withbelow.

28. Calvin, Comm., Col 1:14, N.T.C. 6.225.

29. Calvin, Comm., Isa 53:12, vol. 4,131. All references to Calvin's Old Testamentcommentaries are from the Calvin Translation Society series, 90 vols., (Edin-burgh: T. & T. Clark, 1845-1854) unless otherwise noted.

30. Calvin, Sermons on Isaiah's Prophecy of the Death and Passion of Christ, 70, C.O.35.637.

31. Calvin, The Deity of Christ and Other Sermons, 155, C.O. 46.919.

32. Calvin, Institutes, 2.16.2, O.S. 3.483

33. Calvin, Comm., Matt 26:39, N.T.C. 2.314.

34. Calvin, The Deity of Christ and Other Sermons, 155-56, C.O. 46.919.

35. Ibid., 52.

36. Roger Nicole makes this point in relation to the two quotations above in hisarticle "John Calvin's View," 197-225. See also Paul Helm, Calvin and theCalvinists, 43-44.

37. Calvin, Sermons on Isaiah, 70, C.O. 35.637; Comm., John 1:5, N.T.C. 3.4; Comm.,John 1:11, N.T.C. 3.8; Comm., Rom 5:18, N.T.C. 5.78; Institutes, 3.1.1., O.S. 4.1;The Deity of Christ and Other Sermons, 242, C.O. 48.622. Some have also drawnattention to Calvin's statement in his last will as proving that he held to uni-versal atonement (see Curt Daniel, "Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill" [Ph.D.diss., University of Edinburgh, 1983], 789; R. T. Kendall, Calvin and EnglishCalvinism to 1649 [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979], 13). The statementin question reads as follows: "I further testify and declare that as a suppliantI humbly implore of him to grant me to be so washed and purified by the


blood of that sovereign Redeemer, shed for the sins of the human race, that Imay be permitted to stand before his tribunal in the image of the Redeemerhimself," Letters of John Calvin, vol. 4, ed. J. Bonnet, tran. D. Constable (Phila-delphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1858), 365-369.

38. Owen begins with the assumption that these are the normative passages forinterpreting all passages which speak of those for whom Christ died. It is notuntil book four of his work that he addresses those passages which speak ofChrist's dying for the whole world. Having already arrived at the conclusionthat the "many" passages provide the norm for understanding the extent ofthe atonement, he is left to attempt to explain away all the passages whichspeak of Christ dying for the whole world.

39. This argument from Owen is one of the most common arguments employedin defense of particular redemption. It is affirmed by J. I. Packer in the intro-duction to the Banner of Truth Trust's edition of The Death of Death. See alsoJohn Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids: Wm. B.Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1955), 62-63.

40. Calvin, Comm., Matt 20:28, N.T.C. 2.181. In his commentary on Rom 5:15,Calvin asks us to observe "that a larger number (plures) are not here con-trasted with many fynultis), for he speaks not of the number of men: but asthe sin of Adam has destroyed many, he draws this conclusion,—that therighteousness of Christ will be no less efficacious to save many," N.T.C. 5.76.He specifically states that "many" is not to be understood as being con-trasted with a larger number, such as "all."

41. Limited atonement, or particular redemption, is often frequently termed"definite" atonement, particularly in deference to those who might take of-fence at the idea that there may have been "limits" to the death of Christ.Some Calvinists thus employ the phrase "definite atonement" to clarify theirmeaning to be that Christ came to die for certain people only, not that therewas any limit as to how many people for whom Christ could have died. Cal-vin's use of the word "definite" here is a clear indication that he rejected theidea that there were any for whom Christ did not die.

42. Calvin, Comm., Isa 53:12, C.O. 37.266.

43. Calvin, Comm., Mark 14:24, N.T.C. 2.311.

44. Calvin, Comm., Heb 9:27, N.T.C. 7.93-94.


45. This contrast is recognized by Curt D. Daniel in an appendix to his Univer-sity of Edinburgh dissertation "Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill," (795). In hisappendix entitled "Did John Calvin Teach Limited Atonement?," Daniel ar-gues very thoroughly and convincingly that Calvin held to universal atone-ment. His analyses of certain problematic passages in Calvin are especiallyhelpful and will be referred to later in this chapter.

46. Calvin, Sermons on Isaiah, 141, C.O. 35.680.

47. Ibid. See also Comm., Gal 1:3-5, N.T.C. 6.3-4; Gal. 1:16, N.T.C. 6.11.

48. See Owen, The Death of Death, 199-204, 292-298. See also J.I. Packer's intro-duction to this same volume, pp. 15-18; John Murray, Redemption Accom-plished and Applied, 109.


50. Calvin, Sermons on Galatians, 106, C.O. 50.453.

51. Calvin, Comm., Rom 5:18, N.T.C. 5.78.


53. Paul Helm argues that one reason for Calvin's near silence on the question ofthe extent of the atonement may be explained by the fact that this issue wasnot widely debated until the rise of Arminianism before the Synod of Dort(Calvin and the Calvinists, 18). Helm is arguing from the assumption that lim-ited atonement was the predominant view long before Dort and thus thereason why Calvin had no occasion to enter into debate on the issue. Whilethis might explain why Calvin never argued this point with other reformedtheologians, it does not explain why Calvin does not raise the issue in his po-lemics with the Roman Catholic Church. Furthermore, Robert Letham in hisAberdeen University Ph.D. dissertation has argued that universal atonementwas the original reformation view and that particularism began to predomi-nate about the time of Beza ("Saving Faith and Assurance in Reformed The-ology: Zwingli to the Synod of Dort," 2 vols. [Ph.D. diss., AberdeenUniversity, 1979]). While I differ with Letham's contention that particular-ism was introduced by Calvin (and Bullinger), it is clear that the early re-formed theologians were not universally particularist as Helm seems toassume.

54. Kendall mentions this in his brief argument at the outset of Calvin and Eng-


lish Calvinism, 12. See also Daniel, "Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill" 790.

55. Calvin, Tracts and Treatises on the Doctrine and Worship of the Church, trans.Henry Beveridge (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1849; repr. GrandRapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1958), 3:109. Calvin's words are "The third andfourth heads I do not touch" (tertium et quartum capita non attingo), C.O.7.443.

56. Ibid., 93, C.O. 7.436.

57. Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, trans. J. K. S. Reid (Lon-don: James Clark & Co., 1961), 149, C.O. 8.336. It is unclear whether it is Cal-vin or Georgius who mentions Lombard's formula that the death of Christwas sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect (see Daniel, "Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill," 807). If it is Calvin, then he clearly does not feelthat this formula is of any help in this circumstance. Helm mentions thispassage as proof that Calvin rejected the formula, thus making him a par-ticularist (Calvin and the Calvinists, 16). Kendall indicates that Calvin rejectedthe formula, yet Kendall believes that Calvin's rejection of this formulamakes him a universalist with regard to the extent of the atonement (Calvinand English Calvinism, 12). Yet, in his commentary on 1 John 2:2, Calvin ad-mits the truth of the formula but indicates that it has no bearing in that con-text. If this is an instance of Calvin alluding to this formula, there is noreason to feel that he rejects it, considering his affirmation of the formula inhis commentary on 1 John 2:2. If Calvin's quotation of Georgius ends afterthe recitation of this formula, thus making the allusion to the formula Geor-gius' rather than Calvin's, it should still be remembered that Calvin else-where affirmed the truth of the formula. It is possible that Calvin wasinconsistent in this instance. It is also possible that the "absurdity" to whichCalvin referred was Georgius' conclusion that all would be joined to Christ,which was certainly Calvin's primary critique of Georgius. Calvin's primarycomplaint was that Georgius failed to see the necessity of faith and partici-pation in Christ for the atonement to be applied to the believer.

58. This can be seen in Calvin's comments on pp. 151-52, in the same treatise;e.g. "But this monk calls attention to the words; for Paul comprehends allthe race of men, when he says that the sin of one man came upon all, andhence no one may be excluded from participation in life" (Tracts and Trea-tises,l52, C.O. 8.337).

59. Ibid., 149, C.O. 8.336.


60. It should be noted that Calvin clearly held that the determination of whowas to be saved and who was to be reprobated was made according to thefree decision of the Sovereign Lord. Calvin is simply countering Georgius'assumption that all those for whom Christ died will ultimately be saved. Thedetermining factor is to whom God has chosen to grant the benefits of thedeath of Christ.

61. Helm, Calvin and the Calvinists, 17.

62. Roger Nicole, "John Calvin's View," 220-21

63. Institutes, 2.17.1.

64. Calvin, Comm., Gal 2:20, N.T.C. 6.20; Institutes, 3.3.1, O.S. 4.55.

65. Calvin, Comm., I Tim 2:4, N.T.C. 6.353. William Cunningham appeals to thispassage as being one explicit statement from Calvin on the question of theatonement (The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, 400). He statesthat Calvin follows later particularist practice by limiting verse 4 ("Who willhave all men to be saved") to apply only to the elect.

66. Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, 109, C.O. 6.546.

67. Calvin, Comm., I Tim 2:5-7, N.T.C. 6.354, emphasis is original.

68. This section is actually from his comments on verse 5 when he is dealingwith the significance of Paul's construction "one God/one Mediator." Calvinunderstands this construction to have universal implications. "Thus, what-ever diversity there was among men at that time, in that many ranks and na-tions were strangers to faith, Paul reminds believers of the oneness of God,that they may know that there is a bond between them and all men, becausethere is one God over all, that they may know that those who are under thepower of the same God are not excluded forever from hope of salvationWhen Calvin actually comes to comment on verse 6 "He gave himself. . . ,"he makes no comment about the extent of the atonement but stresses its suf-ficiency against the Papists who include the dead saints as "associates ofChrist" in his office as intercessor.

69. Calvin, Comm., I Tim 2:5, N.T.C. 6.354.

70. Ibid.


71. Calvin, Comm., Matt 20:28, N.T.C. 2.181. Curt Daniel also draws the sameparallel for these verses.

72. Calvin, Comm., I Tim 2:5, N.T.C. 6.354.

73. Calvin, Comm., Rom 5:18, N.T.C. 5.78; Comm., Gal 5:12, N.T.C. 6.68.

74. Calvin, Comm., Tit 2:11, N.T.C. 6.476.

75. Calvin, Comm., John 6:45, N.T.C. 3.124. Helm refers to this quotation as proofthat when Calvin uses the word "all" he is not necessarily referring to thewhole world (Calvin and ihe Calvinists, 46).

76. Ibid. See also Comm., John 12:32, N.T.C. 3.244.

77. Comm., John 17:9, N.T.C. 3.317, italics added.

78. It is interesting that Roger Nicole includes Calvin's comments on John 17:9in his argument that Calvin was a particularist ("John Calvin's View," 220).It is true that Calvin writes that when we pray for "all" it should be under-stood that our prayers are actually limited to the elect. What is interesting isthe portion that Nicole leaves out of this quotation in his article. He leavesout the phrase "and Christ afterward prayed for all indiscriminately." John17:9 is frequently employed by particularists in their arguments that Christdied only for the elect. Their argument is as follows: (1) one of the mediato-rial roles of Christ is that of priest; (2) one of the duties of the Old Testamentpriests was to intercede on behalf of the people; (3) Christ's words to the ef-fect that he does not pray for the world are evidence that he did not die forthe whole world since his office of intercession was acquired by him on thecross. Yet, in Calvin's comments on this passage, he makes a point to remindhis readers that Christ did later pray for all indiscriminately.

79. Paul Helm mentions Calvin's comments on this verse but limits his com-ments to a refutation of R. T. Kendall's claim that Calvin did not subscribe tothe "sufficient/efficient" scheme of the schoolmen (Calvin and the Calvinists,39). William Cunningham points to Calvin's comments on this passage asexplicit evidence that he did not hold to universal atonement, and presuma-bly, can be understood to have held to particular atonement (The Reformersand the Theology of the Reformation, 400). In his article "John Calvin's View ofthe Extent of the Atonement," Roger Nicole does not mention Calvin'scomments on this passage. It should be noted that in the paragraphs that fol-low I will be making use of Curt D. Daniel's treatment of this passage from


Calvin found in Daniel's dissertation, "Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill."Daniel's explanation of this passage from Calvin is the most cogent accountthat I have seen. His identification of the "fanatics" against whom Calvin isarguing to be Georgius and others like him, who use 1 John 2:2 to argue for auniversal application of salvation, is the most plausible explanation as to thecause of Calvin's concern over this passage.

80. Calvin, Comm., I John 2:2, N.T.C. 7.286. (Amplifications causa hoc addidit, utcerto persuasi sint fideles, expiationem a Christo partum ad omnes extendi, t\uiEvangelium fide amplexi fuerint. Sed hie movetur quaestio, quomodo munditotiuspeccata expientur. Omitto phreneticorum deliria, qui hoc praetextu reprobos omnes,adeoque Satanam ipsum in salutem admittunt. Tale portentum refutatione indig-num est. Qui hanc absurditatem volebant effugere, dixerunt, sufficienter pro totomundo passum esse Christum, sed pro electis tantum efficaciter. Vulgo haec solutioin scholis obtinuit. Ego quanquam verum esse illud dictum fateor, nego tamen prae-senti loco quadrare. Neque enim aliud fuit consilium loannis, quam toti ecclesiaecommune facere hoc bonum. Ergo sub omnibus reprobus non comprehendit: sed eosdesignat, qui simul credituri erant, et qui per varias mundi plagas dispersi erant.Tune enim vere, ut par est, illustratur Christi gratia, quum unica mundi saluspraedicatur.)

81. Curt Daniel, "Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill/' 804.

82. Ibid., 803.

83. An interesting parallel can be seen in Calvin's commentary on 1 Cor 15:28("that God may be all in all"). He remarks that some have used this verse toargue that God will save even the reprobate and Satan. Calvin recoils at thesuggestion that God would have Satan united with Himself. He says thatsuch blasphemous views are the result of madness.

84. One notable example is William Cunningham (The Reformers and the Theologyof the Reformation, 400). Cunningham begins his discussion of the question of•whether or not Calvin held to universal atonement by stating that Calvin didnot explicitly deal with the question. He then appealed to this "explicit" ref-erence as indicating that Calvin did not hold to universal atonement, andthus presumably, Calvin must have been a particularist. Nowhere doesCunningham deal with the examples of Calvin's explicit affirmations of uni-versal atonement.



86. This could equally be deduced from Helm's writings. Both point to Calvin'sinclusion of such phrases as "for us" at places where he also writes of Christdying for the whole world. Helm and Nicole argue that the inclusion of suchlimiting phrases as "for us" indicate a qualification of the universal languageemployed by Calvin. Their point is that while Calvin does frequently em-ploy phrases such as "Christ died for the sins of the whole world/' heshould be understood to mean that "Christ died for the sins of all the elect."

87. Nicole, "John Calvin's View," 217.

88. Roger Nicole is clearly aware of the problem presented by Calvin's interpre-tation of the "many" passages. Immediately after he has listed the placeswhere Calvin universalizes the word "many" to mean "all," he offers ascounter evidence those places where Calvin qualifies the word "all" to mean"all classes" ("John Calvin's view," 219). It is as if Nicole, keenly aware ofthe import of Calvin's rejection of this key particularist interpretation, ap-peals to the fact that, at least sometimes, Calvin's hermeneutic does agreewith his own.

89. Calvin, Theological Treatises, trans. J. K. S. Reid, Library of Christian ClassicsSeries no. 22. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1954), 285, C.O. 9.482.

90. Calvin, Institutes, 4.17.5, O.S. 5.347.

91. Daniel, 821, quoting Institutes, 4.17.33, O.S. 5.393. Parenthetical phrases areadded by Daniel for clarity. Italics are mine. Daniel mentions two other in-stances where Calvin uses the rhetorical phrase "I should like to know" inrelation to the Lord's Supper. The first reads as follows: "I should like toknow to what end Christ invites us to partake of the flesh and blood in thesupper, if it be not that he may feed our souls" (Tracts and Treatises, vol. II, p.378, C.O. 9.166). In the second Calvin asks, "I should like to know whether,according to them, this communion belongs indiscriminately to unbelieversas wells as believers" (ibid., p. 415, C.O. 9.201).

92. Calvin, Sermons on Isaiah's Prophecy of the Death and Passion of Christ, 117, C.O.35.686.

93. Calvin, Comm., Mark 14:24, N.T.C. 2.316.

94. Daniel notes the similarity between Heshusius' view and the view of theparticularists. According to the particularists, it is not necessary for savingfaith that a person believe that Christ died for him specifically. It is neces-


sary only that he believe that Christ died for "sinners" or for the "elect."Therefore, according to the particularism when the believer comes to theLord's table he is not required to believe that Christ died for him specificallyin order to be a true partaker of Christ. This is the same position as Heshu-sius' with regard to the wicked truly partaking of the body and blood ofChrist.

95. Daniel, "Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill," 822.

96. Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, 149, C.O. 8.336, emphasisadded.

97. In his article "John Calvin's View of the Extent of the Atonement," RogerNicole cites Curt D. Daniel's Edinburgh dissertation as his major source forthe arguments used by people who argue that Calvin held to universalatonement. Daniel's treatment of Calvin's view on the extent of the atone-ment is very thorough. Indeed, he examines many passages which I havenot dealt with in the brief survey which I have set forth in this chapter. Yet,despite his knowledge of Daniel's dissertation, Nicole still refuses to allowthe possibility that Calvin did not hold to particular redemption.

98. Still, it should be noted that there exists in Reformed circles the assumptionthat there was a virtually unbroken interpretive continuity from Calvin tothe framers of the Westminster Confession. Paul Helm aptly demonstratesthis assumption when he remarks that "[t]his tradition [of biblical interpreta-tion] . . . stretched from Calvin through his successors on the continent ofEurope and the British Isles to the Puritans and the English dissenters. Sothat . . . there was an important continuity of biblical understanding and bib-lical preaching" (Calvin and the Calvinists, 3). Helm specifically states that thetradition expressed in the Westminster Confession was handed down fromCalvin and the reformers (ibid).

99. Cunningham, The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, 398^00.

100. Nicole, "John Calvin's View," 224. Many of Nicole's arguments that Calvinheld to limited atonement are inferential arguments such as this one. Whilehe does refer to some of the passages where Calvin seems to be affirminglimited atonement, some of the more important ones are overlooked by him(e.g., Comm., 1 John 2:2). His overall concern seems to be that the concept ofsubstitution necessitates a limited atonement.


101. J. I. Packer, "What Did the Cross Achieve?/' Tyndale Bulletin 25, no.l (1974):37.

102. Helm, Calvin and the Calvinists, 18, italics in original. Just exactly what Helmmeans when he says that Calvin was committed to definite atonement eventhough he does not commit himself to definite atonement remains a mysteryto the present writer.

103. Calvin, Institutes, 3.1.1, O.S. 4.1.

104. The importance of faith should not be overlooked. Calvin himself makesthis point in the same paragraph. His concern in this section is to explainhow it is that the benefits of the death of Christ's death actually accrue to us.The benefits of Christ's death come to us through our union with himbrought about by the Holy Spirit.


D. James Kennedy - Union with Christ and Extent of Atonement in Calvin

Documents

Transcript of D. James Kennedy - Union with Christ and Extent of Atonement in Calvin