Bell:

Because the extent of Christ’s work is universal, it is offered likewise to every person, as noted above. However, the most common doubt among men is that the benefit of Christ’s death, which is ‘available and ready for all’, is personally available for them.¹⁴ Although Christ is offered to all, we readily see that not all receive him. This, states Calvin, is due to their hardness and unbelief.¹⁵ However, Calvin teaches that those who so reject Christ are ‘doubly culpable’ since they have rejected ‘the blessing in which they could share by faith’.¹⁶ It would be inexcusable to argue from this that Satan and his demons, as well as the ungodly, benefit from Christ. Nevertheless, Calvin maintains, an important distinction exists between the demons and the ungodly, and that is that ‘the benefit of redemption is offered to the ungodly, but not to the devils.’¹⁷ Even the ungodly are included precisely because Calvin consistently teaches that ‘no one is excluded from this salvation’ wrought for all by the death of Christ, provided they believe.¹⁸

Were this all Calvin had written on the subject, we might expect more agreement as to the universal character of Christ’s atonement in his teaching, for clearly he taught that Christ died for all. Unfortunately, Calvin complicates matters by stating in several places that ‘all’ does not mean each individual, but rather all ‘kinds’ of men. For instance, concerning I John 2:2, Calvin excludes the reprobate from the term ‘all’ and refers it to ‘those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered’ throughout the world.¹⁹ Letham thinks that this statement places Calvin’s so-called universalist passages in a new light. ‘If “all” means all without distinction as he says it does, rather than all without exception, Calvin cannot be said to have taught universal atonement in any sense.’²⁰ In fact, in one instance Calvin does insist that the term must always be understood to refer to ‘classes of men but never to individual.²¹

Read the rest of this entry »

Kennedy:

Universal Atonement in Calvin’s Polemical Writings

Were Calvin a proponent of limited atonement, one would expect that in his disagreements with other theologians he would have taken the opportunity to argue for this position when combating the beliefs of those who affirmed a universal atonement.⁴⁵ Upon examination however, this proves not to be the case. For example, it has been widely recognized that in Calvin’s refutation of the decrees from the Council of Trent, he did not disagree with the statement on universal atonement.⁴⁶ Indeed, he specifically mentions the decree dealing with the extent of the atonement and states that he does not disagree with it.⁴⁷ Calvin quotes the decree as follows: “Him God set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood for our sins, 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, but only those to whom the merit of his passion is communicated.”⁴⁸ The wording in this statement is explicitly universal with regard to the atonement; yet, Calvin indicates no disagreement with it. Had Calvin held to particular redemption, it is difficult to believe that he would not have taken the opportunity to dispute the Roman Church on this point.

One particularly significant passage in Calvin’s polemical writings goes far to demonstrate that not only does Calvin not hold to particular redemption, neither does he hold to a certain theological presupposition that lies at the heart of the limited atonement position. In the second half of his treatise Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, Calvin defends his doctrine of predestination against Georgius, a Sicilian monk who had spoken out against Calvin’s teaching on predestination. The passage in question is rather lengthy but is worth reading in its entirety:

Georgius thinks he argues very acutely when he says: Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world; and hence those who wish to exclude the reprobate from participation in Christ must place them outside the world (Ergo extra mundum reprobus constituant oportet qui a Christi participatione arcere eos volunt). For this, the common solution does not avail, that Christ suffered sufficiently for all, but efficaciously only for the elect. By this great absurdity, this monk has sought applause in his own fraternity, but it has no weight with me. Wherever the faithful are dispersed throughout the world, John extends to them the expiation wrought by Christ’s death. But this does not alter the fact that the reprobate are mixed up with the elect in the world. It is incontestable that Christ came for the expiation of the sins of the whole world (Controversia etiam caret, Christum expiandis totius mundi peccatis ve nisse). But the solution lies close at hand, that whosoever believes in him should not perish but should have eternal life (J n 3.15). For the question is not how great the power of Christ is or what efficacy it has in itself but to whom he gives himself to be enjoyed. If possession lies in faith and faith emanates from the Spirit of adoption, it follows that only he is reckoned in the number of God’s children who will be a partaker (particeps) of Christ.⁴⁹

In this passage Calvin is countering Georgius’s argument that, since Christ is said to have died for the whole world, Calvin must place the reprobate outside of the world for the death of Christ not to apply to them. My use here of the word “apply” is carefully chosen. Calvin’s polemic with Georgius clearly indicates that he understood Georgius to hold to universal salvation, that the benefits of the death of Christ will actually be “applied” to all those for whom Christ died.⁵⁰ Calvin, then, is not just arguing against someone who holds the view of a universal atonement, but with someone who claims that Christ’s death for the sins of the whole world will actually result in the salvation of the whole world.

Read the rest of this entry »