Davenant:
1) But here it is proper to advise by the way. That when we assert that Christ our Lord is to be extolled in hymns, we do not exclude the Father or the Holy Spirit, nay, we call them into a participation of the same honor: for he who extols Christ the Redeemer, at the same time extols both the Father, who sent him to redeem the world; and the Holy Spirit, who renders this redemption efficacious to all the elect and believers. John Davenant, An Exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2005), 2:143. [Italics original, some reformatting, underlining mine.]
2) In many other places the work of reconciliation is ascribed to God the Father: But that remarkable one, 2 Cor. v. 18, 19, contains the sum of them all, God hath reconciled us himself: God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself. Although, therefore, (as we shall presently shew) the work of reconciliation is attributed to Christ, as the proximate and immediate agent; yet it is proper to ascribe it to God the Father; and, by consequence, to the whole Trinity, as the primary cause: For the whole Trinity, which foresaw from eternity the fall of the human race, pre-ordained this way of effecting reconciliation by Christ, and inspired the man Christ Jesus with the will to suffer for the redemption of mankind. So it is said in Isaiah xlii. 6, I, the Lord, have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, &c. In which place the prophet teaches us, that Jehovah himself had ordained and called Christ to this work of reconciliation, and strengthened and upheld him during his whole accomplishment of human salvation. It is evident, therefore, that God was the primary author of this reconciliation, and was induced to devise this plan of our redemption entirely from his own good pleasure, and from free love. The Apostle here employs this particular term ‘eudokese. It pleased him well. And in Jeremiah xxxi. 3, we read, I have loved thee with an everlasting love. And in all parts of Scripture, this gratuitous love of God is declared to be the cause why the Father sent his Son into the world to obtain salvation for us, John iii. 16, God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son. And in Ephes. ii. 4, 5, For his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead in sins, he hath quickened us, &c. John Davenant, An Exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2005), 1:235-236. [Italics original, underlining mine.]
[Note: It has always seemed strange why someone would insist that if the moderate and classic Calvinist position be true, it must be true that the persons of the Trinity are in a state of conflict or division, as if, for example, the Father elects and so desires the salvation of the elect alone, yet the Son seeks and obtains a sufficient redemption for all, and desires the salvation of all. Sometimes this argument expresses itself by asserting that the classic Calvinist position posits conflicting intentions within the Godhead. We see these sorts of objections time and time again. The problem is, on the terms of the moderate and classic Calvinist, such a set of conditions or states of affairs would never apply. For example, I do not know of any one, even within the broadest scope of the Reformed tradition, who has argued that the Son desired the salvation of any one, or sought the salvation of any one, contrary to the wishes of the Father. Rather, then, the argument is a caricature, having only argumentative force if undergirded by the theological assumptions and constructions of the opposing paradigm. It is never wise to posit a rebuttal (unless your aim is only to speak to the choir), which can only be sustained on your terms, and never on the assumed terms of your opponent.
What it also interesting is that these objections are also proposed by opponents of common grace and general love, by positing the same idea of internal Trinitarian conflict, such as the Son loves men, whom the Father does not love, and so forth. The answer to this would be, and is the same answer to the previous set of objections. This should all be common sense: see for example Daniel’s response to this proposed dilemma.]
Bullinger:
Bv. [Bullinger] Hereby certainly, it is evident that the Son died with the good will of the Father, and that the will and purpose of them both was all one in the redeeming of the world.
Source: Augustine Marlorate, A Catholike and Ecclesiasticall exposition of the holy Gospel after S. Iohn, trans., Thomas Timme (Imprinted at London by Thomas Marshe, Anno Domini. 1575), John 10:17, p., 374. [Some spelling modernized.]
[Note: Shedd, is cited to respond to the claim that the expiation must, in and of itself, secure its application with regard to all those for whom it was made (contra Smeaton, et al) . See also Lane and Daniel for an explanation of this point.]
Shedd:
1) In the third place, an atonement, either personal or vicarious, when made, naturally and necessarily cancels legal claims. This means that there is such a natural and necessary correlation between vicarious atonement and justice, that the former supplies all that is required by the latter. It does not mean that Christ’s vicarious atonement naturally and necessarily saves every man; because the relation of Christ’s atonement to divine justice is one thing, but the relation of a particular person to Christ’s atonement is a very different thing. Christ’s death as related to the claims of the law upon all mankind, cancels those claims wholly. It is an infinite “propitiation for the sins of the whole world,” 1 John 2:2. But the relation of an impenitent person to this atonement, is that of unbelief and rejection of it. Consequently, what the atonement has effected objectively in reference to the attribute of divine justice, is not effected subjectively in the conscience of the individual. There is an infinite satisfaction that naturally and necessarily cancels legal claims, but unbelief derives no benefit from the fact. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 2:437
2) The expiation of sin is distinguishable from the pardon of it. The former, conceivably, might take place and the latter not. When Christ died on Calvary, the whole mass, so to speak, human sin was expiated merely by that death; but the whole mass was not pardoned merely by that death. The claims of law and justice for the sins of the whole world were satisfied by the “offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb. 10:10); but the sins of every individual man were not forgiven and “blotted out” by this transaction. Still another transaction was requisite in order to this: namely, the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the sinner working faith in this expiatory offering, and the declarative act of God saying ” Thy sin is forgiven thee.” The Son of God, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, ” sat down on the right hand of God ” (Heb. 10:12) ; but if the redeeming work of the Trinity had stopped at this point, not a soul of mankind would have been pardoned and justified, yet the expiatory value of the “one sacrifice” would have been just the same. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 3:418.
Calvin:
The Role of the Father:
1) That, then, is the intention of our Lord Jesus. For He surely prayed throughout His whole life, and even previously in this great combat which He had sustained, He prays to God that if it were possible this drink might be turned away from Him. But now He has taken up His conclusion, because He was so ordained by God His Father and He saw that He must acquit Himself of the charge which was committed to Him, that is, to offer the perpetual sacrifice to blot out the sins of the world. John Calvin, Sermons on the Deity of Christ, Sermon 5, Matt 25:51-56 , p., 87.
2) Therefore Jesus Christ will not answer before Pontius Pilate. Why so? Because he sought to satisfy the will of God his father, & that decree which he had concluded: he knew that by his sacrifice, he puts away the sins of the world. And therefore Jesus Christ being in the place of sinners, & their persons, defended not himself: & as it has been said by the Prophet Isaiah, he is led to death, as a lamb that is shorn and opens not his mouth…
To be short this is that the Apostle says in the tenth of Hebrews, if we will be partakers of all that was gotten us by the son of God, we must have patience: after that he has shown himself, that when Jesus Christ had suffered for the sins of the world, he went up into heaven, he added “That this was to arm us to patience.” For it is nothing, if the fruit of this redemption, which was purchased for us, does not show itself by faith: for otherwise, it will be a thing come to nought. John Calvin, Sermons on 1 Timothy, Sermon 51, 6:13-16, p., 612.
The Office of the Spirit:
1) He calls the Spirit another Comforter, on account of the difference between the blessings which we obtain from both. The peculiar office of Christ was, to appease the wrath of God by atoning for the sins of the world, to redeem men from death, to procure righteousness and life; and the peculiar office of the Spirit is, to make us partakers not only of Christ himself, but of all his blessings. And yet there would be no impropriety in inferring from this passage a distinction of Persons; for there must be some peculiarity in which the Spirit differs from the Son so as to be another than the Son. John Calvin, John 14:16.
2) “Unto obedience”. He adds two things to sanctification, and seems to understand newness of life by obedience, and by the sprinkling of the blood of Christ the remission of sins. But if these be parts or effects of sanctification, then sanctification is to be taken here somewhat different from what it means when used by Paul, that is, more generally. God then sanctifies us by an effectual calling; and this is done when we are renewed to an obedience to his righteousness, and when we are sprinkled by the blood of Christ, and thus are cleansed from our sins. And there seems to be an implied allusion to the ancient rite of sprinkling used under the law. For as it was not then sufficient for the victim to be slain and the blood to be poured out, except the people were sprinkled; so now the blood of Christ which has been shed will avail us nothing, except our consciences are by it cleansed. There is then to be understood here a contrast, that, as formerly under the law the sprinkling of blood was made by the hand of the priest; so now the Holy Spirit sprinkles our souls with the blood of Christ for the expiation of our sins. John Calvin, 1 Peter 1:1-2.
[Note: these are but a few informal references from Calvin on the Trinitarian work of salvation which demonstrate the impropriety of positing a disconnect between the work of the Father and the work of the Son in the classic and moderate understanding of the extent and nature of the expiation.]
[Notes: The following is an extract from Tony Lane’s article ‘The Quest for the Historical Calvin.” While Lane specifically addresses Calvin here (which is very insightful in and of itself), this quotation is useful in that Lane addresses a secondary question regarding the oft alleged false dilemma regarding the atonement. Lastly, for formatting, I have retained the footnote values from the source article. For John Calvin’s view of the extent of the atonement, see here.]
Lane:
On what grounds is it claimed that Calvin believed in limited atonement? First, he held to the efficacy of the cross. It is the ‘effectual completion of salvation.’22But in the context this implies that the work of salvation is objectively accomplished by the cross and Calvin later makes it clear that this is of no we to us unless the Holy Spirit apply it to us personally. ‘So long as we are without Christ and separated from him, nothing which he suffered and did for the salvation of the human race is of the least benefit to us.’23 Calvin does not appear to be taking the Calvinist line that the cross itself guarantees the subjective appropriation of salvation by the elect. Secondly, it is argued that the logic of Calvin’s position demands limited atonement.24 But to deduce such a doctrine by logical extrapolation is to indulge in speculation beyond what is revealed, to which Calvin was vigorously opposed. Furthermore, such deductions are based on one aspect only of Calvin’s teaching, the particular or limited aspect, while there is also a universal aspect in his teaching.25 Logical deductions from the latter aspect could equally lead to a doctrine of universal atonement. Thirdly, it is argued that because only the elect are saved and because Christ’s death procures salvation, Christ died for the elect alone.26 But this overlooks the distinction, noted above, between the objective work of Christ and the subjective application of it by the Holy Spirit. Similarly, the advocates of limited atonement love to pose the dilemma: does the work of Christ merely make salvation possible, without making certain the salvation of anyone, or does it effectually guarantee the salvation of the elect, for whom alone Christ died? Calvin’s position is well summarized by the retort of Professor James Torrance: our salvation is made certain, not merely possible, by the combined work of Father, Son and Holy Spirit ( i.e. not by the cross alone, taken in isolation). Fourthly, it is argued that many ‘universal’ statement in Calvin are either quotation from Scripture or reference to the universal call of the gospel.27 But Calvin presumably agreed with scriptural passages which he quoted and he based the universal offer of the gospel on the revealed will of God that he desires the salvation of all.
Extracted from: Tony Lane, “The Quest for the Historical Calvin,” Evangelical Quarterly 55 (1983): 100-101.
__________________
22Inst . 2.16.13, cited by P. Helm, art. cit., 180f. Cf. R. Nicole, op. cit., 19.
24W. R. Godfrey, art. cit., 137f.: P . Helm, art. cit.. 18-22, where the argument concerns more what Calvin ought to have believed; R. Nicole, op. cit., 18.