Archive for December, 2007

Dec

John Calvin and Tileman Heshusius

Posted by: CalvinandCalvinism in Historiography

Many today often cite Calvin’s famous words to Tileman Heshusius, where Calvin says, “I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ which was not crucified for them? and how they can drink the blood which was not shed to expiate their sins?” to prove that Calvin did not believe in an unlimited atonement or expiation.¹ This is the only direct statement from the corpus of Calvin’s writings that can and has been adduced to argue this. The following is a compilation of extracts from various sources, including Calvin himself, which seek to respond the claim that this single statement effectively proves that Calvin held to strict limited atonement or limited expiation.

The original quotation from Calvin with some context:

Does he mean to astonish us by a miracle when he tells us that the blind see it? It has been clearly enough shown that nothing of the kind is to be seen in the words of Paul. He endeavors to disentangle himself by saying, that Christ is present with his creatures in many ways. But the first thing to be explained is, how Christ is present with unbelievers, as being the spiritual food of souls, and, in short, the life and salvation of the world. And as he adheres so doggedly to the words, I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ which was not crucified for them? and how they can drink the blood which was not shed to expiate their sins? I agree with him, that Christ is present as a strict judge when his Supper is profaned. But it is one thing to be eaten, and another to be a judge. When he afterwards says that the Holy Spirit dwelt in Saul, we must send him to his rudiments, that he may learn how to discriminate between the sanctification which is proper only to the elect and the children of God, and the general power which even the reprobate possess. These quibbles, therefore, do not in the slightest degree affect my axiom, that Christ, considered as the living bread and the victim immolated on the cross, cannot enter any human body which is devoid of his Spirit.²

Source reference: “Clear Explanation of Sound Doctrine Concerning the True Partaking of the Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, in Order to Dissipate The Mists of Tileman Heshusius,” Selected Works of John Calvin, 2:527.

Extract from Curt Daniel³
Curt Daniel on Calvin and Heshusius

“We now come to another important quotation from Calvin. This is the ‘very explicit denial of the universality of the atonement’ to which Cunningham appeals as the only example he could find.⁴ In a refutation of the Lutheran writer Heshusius on the true partaking of the Lord’s body at the Supper, Calvin offers this argument:

But the first thing to be explained is, how Christ is present with the unbelievers, as being the spiritual food of souls, and, in short, the life and salvation of the world. And as he adheres so doggedly to the words, I should like 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 expiate their sins? I agree with him, that Christ is present as a strict judge when his supper is profaned. But it is one thing to be eaten, and another to be a judge. . . . Christ, considered as the living bread and the victim immolated on the cross, cannot enter any human body which is devoid of his Spirit.⁵

We cannot ignore this example, as Davenant, Morison, Douty and Kendall do.⁶ Several options are open to us at the outset. First, this paragraph could teach limited atonement. If so, then either Calvin contradicts his other statements espousing Universal atonement (perhaps without knowing it) or has changed his views on the subject.⁷ After all, differences and changes are not entirely without example in Calvin. The tract was written in 1561, a late work. The second option is that affirmed by Cunningham and A.A. Hodge. They feel that this proves that Calvin did not teach Universal atonement. The ‘vague and indefinite statements’ about the atonement written in ‘a more unguarded manner’⁸ must be interpreted in the light of this one explicit statement. Calvin’s other statements are then interpreted as Particularist. The third option is that the quotation above does not teach Particularism, though Calvin elsewhere teaches it. The fourth option is that neither in this place nor anywhere else does Calvin assert limited atonement. We seek to prove that the last option is the correct one.

We need not go into much depth on Calvin’s views of the Supper, for that has been done by others at considerable length.⁹ We do not have access to the original propositions of Heshusius, but they can be deduced from what Calvin says in reply.

Being a Lutheran, Heshusius taught consubstantiation. This means that all who eat the bread and drink the wine at the Table do actually eat and drink Christ, for Christ is really present in, with and under the elements. Calvin, of course, does not accept Christ’s presence at the Table in this way. Christ is spiritually present, says Calvin, and therefore linked with the Word rather than with the elements. This is what Calvin is seeking to prove in the tract. Since Christ is present only in a spiritual sense, He is eaten only in a spiritual sense. And that spiritual eating is done by faith alone. No man truly eats (receives) Christ except through faith.¹⁰ Unbelievers therefore do not eat Christ at all. They are, however, judged by Christ at the Table for their lack of faith. Their judgement for daily lack of faith is compounded when they partake of the elements because the Sacrament is the ultimate expression of personal communion between a believer and his Lord. An unbeliever pretending to be a believer thus insults Christ Himself. Christ certainly is present at the Table but He judges unbelievers because of their unbelief, not because they eat the elements and Himself.

Other passages in Calvin’s work bear special relevance to the interpretation of the passage in question. One is in the Institutes. There Calvin deals with the question of unbelievers ‘eating Christ’: ‘However, I should like to know from them how long they (the wicked) retain it (the true body of Christ) when they have eaten it’.¹¹ Note the same introductory phrase, ‘I should like to know. . . .’ In the Institutes quotation, what follows the introductory phrase is something that Calvin denies–that the wicked actually eat and retain Christ. He is not accepting that the wicked actually eat and retain Christ; the inquiry is rhetorical. We feel, therefore, that the instance with Heshusius must be interpreted as parallel in form and content.¹² In the Institutes quotation, the second clause (that the wicked eat and retain Christ) is asserted by the protagonist; in the Treatise quotation the second clause (that the wicked eat the flesh which was not crucified for them) is asserted by Heshusius, not by Calvin.

When Calvin says that Heshusius ‘adheres so doggedly to the words’, he refers to the Lutheran exegesis which interprets literally Scriptures like ‘Take, eat, This is my body’, (Matt. 26:26) and the verses in John 6 (esp. vss. 35, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56). It is on the basis of this literalising that Heshusius asserts that even the wicked eat Christ. But Calvin does not interpret these verses literally but spiritually. What Calvin is denying is that these verses are interpreted literally and that the wicked eat Christ. He is not denying that the flesh of Christ was crucified for the wicked. Lutherans such as Heshusius, of course, did not deny Universal atonement. Something else, therefore, is being said about the atonement and those for whom Christ died.

Cunningham probably wishes to insert a comma after ‘flesh’, viz.: ‘I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh, which was not crucified for them’. This would make a subordinate clause with a separate assertion, as if there were possibly two sentences: ‘. . . how the wicked can eat the flesh. The flesh was not crucified for them’. But that is not what Calvin is saying. This punctuation would make it more probable that it was Calvin who was making the assertion in the second clause of the inquiry. But we have argued that this clause belongs to Heshusius. What then is he saying?

To answer this we turn to another important parallel. In his Commentary on I. Cor. 11:24, Calvin notes:

. . . the Supper is a mirror which represents Christ crucified to us, so that a man cannot receive the Supper and enjoy the benefits, unless he embraces Christ crucified.¹³

Here Calvin says that true eating is dependant upon embracing Christ crucified. Often he defines this as believing that Christ was crucified for oneself. For instance:

For it is not enough that Jesus Christ suffered in His person and was made a sacrifice for us; but we must be assured of it by the Gospel; we must receive that testimony and doubt not that we have righteousness in Him, knowing that He has made satisfaction for our sins.¹⁴

Calvin says the same thing in his comments on Mark 14:24, which describes the Last Supper:

So when we come to the holy table not only should the general idea come to our mind that the world is redeemed by the blood of Christ, but also each should reckon to himself that his own sins are covered.¹⁵

Calvin says that the faith which truly partakes of Christ’s body at the Table is the same faith which justifies.¹⁶ This faith is grounded in the Gospel and the atonement. We are to renew that faith at the Table by faith in the Word about the cross. This means that we again believe that Christ satisfied for our sins and thereby covered them. This is embracing Christ crucified: believing that Christ died for us. Without this faith, there is no true partaking at the Table. This is contrary to the Particularist theory. Particularism denies that saving faith believes that Christ was crucified for oneself; consequently it further denies that this conviction is necessary for the true partaking of Christ at the Table. This represents a radical departure from Calvin on the Sacrament of the Supper.

We would paraphrase the words in the Treatise quotation as follows: ‘I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ if they do not believe that Christ was crucified for them’. It is Heshusius, not Calvin, who claims that a person can truly eat without this faith. This is not to make Heshusius a Particularist. Not at all. But Heshusius and Particularists share the conviction that one need not believe that Christ was crucified for oneself in order to partake truly of the Supper and Christ.

What about Calvin’s words here about the Spirit? How do we explain them? Calvin is simply saying that there is no true eating without the Spirit within oneself, for the plain reason that there is no faith without the Spirit. This is also brought out in the Commentary on I Cor. 11:27. There Calvin argues that without the Spirit, no one truly eats Christ.¹⁷ Some weak believers eat unworthily but they still do eat, for even weak believers have the Spirit and are united to Christ.¹⁸ The wicked may have historical faith that Christ died but this is not enough truly to partake of Christ. But this is not disputed by Cunningham.

Cunningham’s only support, then, actually teaches the very opposite. Calvin taught that one must believe that Christ died for oneself and that the only way we can know this is for the Gospel to tell us. Though the Gospel does not specify individuals (this man or that man) or particular men, it does say that Christ died for all men. The believer knows that he is a man and therefore that Christ died for him. Saving faith accepts this. The conclusion is that without a Universal atonement no man can know by the Gospel that Christ died for him. In this sense we can agree with Kendall’s introductory sentence to his first chapter: ‘Fundamental to the doctrine of faith in John Calvin (1509–64) is his belief that Christ died indiscriminately for all men.’”¹⁹

Relevant sources from Dr. Daniel’s Bibliography

Barclay, Alexander The Protestant Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. Glasgow, 1927.

Bell, Merton Charles, Jr., Saving Faith and Assurance of Salvation in the Teaching of John Calvin and Scottish Theology. Ph.D. thesis, Aberdeen University, 1982.

Calvin, John, Letters of John Calvin. 4 vols. Edited and translated by Jules Bonnet. New York, 1858, 1972.

Calvin, John, Tracts and Treatises. With a short life of Calvin by Theodore Beza. 3 vols. Translated by Henry Beveridge. Edited by Thomas F. Torrance. Grand Rapids, 1958. See pp. 215 – 216 below from Calvin’s other works cited.

Cunningham, William, The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation. Edinburgh, 1862, 1967.

Doyle, Robert Colin, The Context of Moral Decision Making in the Writings of John Calvin–the Christological Ethics of Eschatological Order. Ph.D. thesis, Aberdeen University, 1981.

Helm, Paul, Calvin and the Calvinists. Edinburgh, 1982.

Hodge, Archibald, A., The Atonement. London, 1868.

Kuiper, R.B., For Whom Did Christ Die? Grand Rapids, 1959.

Lane, A.N.S. ‘Calvin’s Doctrine of Assurance’, Vox Evangelica, vol. XI, 1979, pp. 32–54.

Strong, Augustus Hopkins, Systematic Theology. Philadelphia, 1907.

Wallace, Ronald S., Calvin’s Doctrine of the Word and Sacrament. Edinburgh, 1953.

Alan Clifford on Calvin and Heshusius²⁰

Footnote #42 reads:

“William Cunningham (1805–61) flies in the face of the evidence in denying that Calvin taught universal atonement (The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation (London, 1862; fac. London, 1967), 397. Although he denies that it is conclusive, he cites Calvin’s isolated reply to the Lutheran divine Heshusius as ‘a very explicit denial of the universality of the atonement’ (p. 396). Calvin says, ‘As he adheres so doggedly to the words [‘this is my body’], I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ which was not crucified for them, and how they can drink the blood which was not shed to expiate their sins?’ For a discussion of this see Daniel, ‘John Gill and Hypercalvinism’, p. 818 ff. Alternatively, once it is seen that Calvin is opposing the theory of consubstantiation, an otherwise problematic statement makes sense beside his numerous universalist statements. He is virtually asking how unbelievers (or anyone for that matter) can feed on a crucified Christ simply by eating and drinking consecrated elements; for they themselves were not actually crucified as Christ was. Calvin is simply ridiculing the idea that unbelievers feed on Christ by feeding on mere symbols. See Tracts and Treatises, ii. 527.”

G. Michael Thomas on Calvin and Heshusius²¹

Footnote #58 reads:

“Proponents of limited atonement have made much of a remark of Calvin to the Lutheran Heshusius on the subject of the Lord’s Supper (e.g. Nicole, op cit., p.222), in “The Clear Explanation of Sound Doctrine Concerning the True Partaking of the Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Holy Supper” (1561), in Theological Treatises, ed. and trans. J.K.S.Reid, Library of Christian Classics vol.22, London 1954, pp. 258–324: “I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Chirst which was not crucified for them” (p.285). There is no need, however, to understand this in any other way than to imply that the benefits of the atonement are only intended to be effective in the case of those who believe. Over against the Lutheran view that participation in the bread and wine invariably means participation in the body and blood of Christ, Calvin taught that participation in Christ is only through faith. The promise of the gospel is to all, but is only intended to benefit those who believe. Calvin’s many statements of the atonement as being for believers are in full harmony with his view that the atonement is for all, in the context of promise, and for some, in the context of election. For belief is the response both invited by the promise, and given by election. Bell, op.cit., pp.16–17, convincingly expounds this remark of Calvin to Heshusius. Cp. Commentary on John, ch.1.v.29, p.33, “Let us therefore learn that we are reconciled to God by the grace of Christ if we go straight to His death and believe that He who was nailed to the cross is the only sacrificial victim by whom all our guilt is removed.”

Tony Byrne comments:

It is interesting how some high Calvinists immediately, as if unconsciously, take the term “wicked” and convert it into “non-elect”. It doesn’t even seem to occur to them that they slide right into thinking of the “wicked” as the “non-elect” in dealing with this quote. In their desperation to use this single Calvin citation to demonstrate their continuity with him on the atonement, they don’t even pause to consider the fact that the unbelieving elect are also “wicked” prior to faith, even as the rest (see Eph. 2:3). The ones that are not wicked are not the elect as such, but the believing elect. The “wicked” are the unbelievers, whether elect or not.

The high Calvinist template or strict particularist presupposition gets stamped on the data as if they’re not even epistemologically self-aware. And, contrary to Cunningham, they found everything upon this one quote.

Final Argument:

Many cite this one comment from Calvin as proof that Calvin held to a limited expiation and redemption. The problem is, Calvin is more complex than often imagined. Only two pages earlier in this tract, Calvin says this:

Still he insists, and exclaims that nothing can be clearer than the declaration, that the wicked do not discern the Lord’s body, and that darkness is violently and intentionally thrown on the clearest truth by all who refuse to admit that the body of Christ is taken by the unworthy. He might have some color for this, if I denied that the body of Christ is given to the unworthy; but as they impiously reject what is liberally offered to them, they are deservedly condemned for profane and brutish contempt, inasmuch as they set at nought that victim by which the sins of the world were expiated, and men reconciled to God.²²

Calvin’s use of the phrase “sins of the world” reflects the common usage of Calvin’s contemporaries, who used this phrase to denote an unlimited expiation and imputation of sin. This can be easily documented from the writings of Bullinger, Zwingli and others of the same period. For example, Bullinger’s Second Helvetic Confession.

Second Helvetic Confession:

Imputed Righteousness. For Christ took upon himself and bore the sins of the world, and satisfied divine justice. Therefore, solely on account of Christ’s sufferings and resurrection God is propitious with respect to our sins and does not impute them to us, but imputes Christ’s righteousness to us as our own (II Cor. 5:19 ff.; Rom. 4:25), so that now we are not only cleansed and purged from sins or are holy, but also, granted the righteousness of Christ, and so absolved from sin, death and condemnation, are at last righteous and heirs of eternal life. Properly speaking, therefore, God alone justifies us, and justifies only on account of Christ, not imputing sins to us but imputing his righteousness to us. [Chapter XV “Of the True Justification of the Faithful.”]

Bullinger in his Dacades is patently clear that by the phrase “sins of the world” he means the sins of all men:

To be short, when we say and confess that Jesus Christ is the priest or bishop of the faithful people, we say that; that Christ is our chosen and appointed teacher and master, to govern and teach his universal church, to make intercession for us, and to plead all our suits faithfully before the Father in heaven; which is the only patron, mediator, and advocate of the faithful with God; who by the sacrifice of his body is the perpetual and only satisfaction, absolution, and justification of all sinners throughout the whole world…

He never sacrificed in the temple at the holy altars either of incense or of burnt-offerings. He never used priestly garments, which were figurative; whereof I spoke when I expounded the ceremonial laws [Heb. 8]. Therefore, when he would sacrifice for the satisfaction of the sins of the whole world, he suffered without the gate, and offered himself a lively and a most holy sacrifice, according as in the shadows or types, prophecies and figures foreshewed in the law of Moses: whereof in like manner I have entreated in the discourse of ceremonial laws… And that only sacrifice is always effectual to make satisfaction for all the sins of all men in the whole world… Christians know that the sacrifice of Christ once offered is always effectual to make satisfaction for the sins of all men in the whole world, and of all men of all ages: but these men with often outcries say, that it is flat heresy not to confess that Christ is daily offered of sacrificing priests, consecrated to that purpose. Decades, 4^th Decade, Sermon 7, vol 2, pp., 285-286, 287, and 296. [His reference to these men is to Rome’s priests and to the Mass.]

There is no direct evidence from Calvin that when he used the phrase “sins of the world,” or like phrases, that he assumed any limitation, whereby the expiation was only for the sins of the elect or something like that. On the contrary, we have such amazing statements as this from Calvin’s pen:

Let us mark then, that he [Job] was not possessed or oppressed with such a despair as he utters here, but that God made him to feel his goodness in some sort. We see this yet much better in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ He says, Why has thou forsaken me? And indeed he is there in extremity, as the party that bears the burden of all the sins of the world. Therefore it was requisite that for a while Jesus Christ should feel himself as it were forsaken of God his Father. But yet nevertheless he had a comfort to the contrary as he showed by saying, “My God, my God” (Matt 27:46). Calvin, Sermons on Job, Sermon 35, Job 9:16-22, p., 161.

So we must take careful note of these words of the prophet when he says that the correction of our peace was on our Lord Jesus Christ; seeing that by his mediation God is satisfied and appeased, for He bore all the wickednesses and all the iniquities of the world.Calvin, Sermons on Isaiah’s Prophecy of the Death and Passion of Christ, Sermon 3, 53:4-6, p., 74.

Therefore we must repair to our Lord Jesus Christ, for it is he that hath borne all our burdens, as I have alleged already. Truly the redeeming of us did cost him dear, and if we seek heaven and earth throughout for the price of a ransom, we shall not find any other than him, that is able to pacify God. Then had we never been sanctified, except the son of God had given himself for us. And in very deed the prophet Isaiah shows how he bear our burdens. ( Isaiah 53:4, 5) Namely that he felt the pains of death, and that the Father was fain [pleased] to wreak himself upon him, as though he had been an offender and guilty of all the sins of the world. Calvin, Sermons on Galatians, Sermon 39, 6:2-5, p., 836/597.

One could simply assert that by the terms “world” and “whole world” in all these examples, and in any other examples, Calvin simply meant the elect or some equivalent concept. But that would be an assertion without any evidence. Indeed, the evidence is clear that he meant all sins of the whole world:

He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God’s benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him. Calvin. Romans 5:18

But how can such an imprecation be reconciled with the mildness of an apostle, who ought to wish that all should be saved, and that not a single person should perish? So far as men are concerned, I admit the force of this argument; for it is the will of God that we should seek the salvation of all men without exception, as Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world. But devout minds are sometimes carried beyond the consideration of men, and led to fix their eye on the glory of God, and the kingdom of Christ. The glory of God, which is in itself more excellent than the salvation of men, ought to receive from us a higher degree of esteem and regard. Believers earnestly desirous that the glory of God should be promoted, forget men, and forget the world, and would rather choose that the whole world should perish, than that the smallest portion of the glory of God should be withdrawn. Calvin, Galatians, 5:12.

Whenever, therefore, we hear this designation applied to the devil, let us be ashamed of our miserable condition; for, whatever may be the pride of men, they are the slaves of the devil, till they are regenerated by the Spirit of Christ; for under the term world is here included the whole human race…

“But that the world may know.” Some think that these words should be read as closely connected with the words, “Arise, let us go hence,” so as to make the sense complete. Others read the former part of the verse separately, and suppose that it breaks off abruptly. As it makes no great difference in regard to the meaning, I leave it to the reader to give a preference to either of these views. What chiefly deserves our attention is, that the decree of God is here placed in the highest rank; that we may not suppose that Christ was dragged to death by the violence of Satan, in such a manner that anything happened contrary to the purpose of God. It was God who appointed his Son to be the Propitiation, and who determined that the sins of the world should be expiated by his death. In order to accomplish this, he permitted Satan, for a short time, to treat him with scorn; as if he had gained a victory over him. Christ, therefore, does not resist Satan, in order that he may obey the decree of his Father, and may thus offer his obedience as the ransom of our righteousness. Calvin, John, 14:30-31.

We can extend the force of this point with the following quotations:

Since then, this robber was a man disapproved of by all, and God called him so suddenly, when our Lord made effective for him His death and passion which He suffered and endured for all mankind, that ought all the more to confirm us…. But though our Lord Jesus Christ by nature held death in horror and indeed it was a terrible thing to Him to be found before the judgment-seat of God in the name of all poor sinners (for He was there, as it were, having to sustain all our burdens), nevertheless He did not fail to humble himself to such condemnation for our sakes… Calvin, Sermons on the Deity of Christ, Sermon 9, Matt 27:45-54, pp., 151, and 155-156.

Thus, when in the present day the Church is afflicted by so many and so various calamities, and innumerable souls are perishing, which Christ redeemed with his own blood, we must be barbarous and savage if we are not touched with any grief. And especially the ministers of the word ought to be moved by this feeling of grief, because, being appointed to keep watch and to look at a distance, they ought also to groan when they perceive the tokens of approaching ruin. Calvin, Isaiah 22:4.

And lastly:

However, St. Paul speaks here expressly of the saints and the faithful, but this does not imply that we should not pray generally for all men. For wretched unbelievers and the ignorant have a great need to be pleaded for with God; behold them on the way to perdition. If we saw a beast at the point of perishing, we would have pity on it. And what shall we do when we see souls in peril, which are so precious before God, as he has shown in that he has ransomed them with the blood of his own Son? If we see then a poor soul going thus to perdition, ought we not to be moved with compassion and kindness, and should we not desire God to apply the remedy. Calvin, Sermons on Ephesians, Sermon 47, 6:18-19, pp., 684-5.

Returning to the famous Heshusius quotation, we could posit that Calvin at this point simply contradicted himself in the space of 2 pages. Yet that seems hardly plausible in the light of the evidence. The most plausible solution therefore is to adopt the combined responses of Daniel, Clifford, Thomas, and Byrne and recognize that in this one comment there is no evidence that Calvin held to a limited expiation and imputation of sin, and a limited redemption. And so, as Cunningham rightly says, there is no weight to this single comment from the pen of John Calvin.

______________________

¹The reader should note that unlimited atonement is defined by this writer to mean that the sin and sins that are due to any man, and therefore every man were imputed to Christ. Hence this is an unlimited expiation and imputation of sin. By the terms limited atonement or limited expiation, this writer defines as the idea that only the sin and/or sins due to the elect were imputed to Christ, hence limited imputation.
²For online reference, see: http://www.godrules.net/library/calvin/142calvin_b13.htm.
³Curt Daniel, Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill (Ph.D. diss., University of Edinburgh, 1983), p. 817–823. The following extract is taken from: R. T. Kendall, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649, (Oxford: Paternoster Press, 1977), pp., 231-238.
⁴Reformers, p. 396. This is probably one of the ‘explicit statements’ Engelsma refers to without quoting (p. 75). After stating that ‘This is a very explicit denial of the universality of the atonement,’ Cunningham adds ‘But it stands alone-so far as we know-in Calvin’s writings, and for this reason we do not found much upon it’ (Reformers, p. 396). This seems to contradict what he said earlier on the same page: ‘We do not find in Calvin’s writings explicit statements as to any limitation in the atonement, or the number of those for whom Christ died’. And later on the same page: ‘He has not usually given any distinct indication, that he believed in any limitation as to the objects of the atonement’. Some critics might be forgiven for supposing that it is Cunningham and not Calvin who fails to give distinct and consistent affirmation on the subject in question. Note further that in dismissing Daille’s evidence he castigates him with respect to ‘consistency’ (p. 401). The quotation is mentioned in Lane, p. 30; A A Hodge, The Atonement, p. 360; Helm, Calvin, p. 21; Letham, vol. I, p. 126; Bell, pp, 15-17; and others. It strikes us as very strange indeed that those such as Cunningham could search so widely among the many writings of Calvin-as we assume they have-and can only produce this solitary quotation which, from their point of view, is obscure at best. Cunningham may sense the embarrassment of this difficult situation by confessing that it stands alone and should not weigh for much. It would be stronger still if in fact this is the only hint at all in which Calvin touches on the whole }softlinequestion of extent. This is why we again stress the absolute importance of repeated, explicit quotations. Surely to argue on the basis of this solitary quote, no matter what it means, against the flood of the rest of the testimony is precarious at best.
⁵ We quote from the Tracts and Treatise (CTS edition), vol. II, p. 527. This was the translation available to Cunningham and Hodge, although the former quotes the Latin and the latter offers what seems to be his own translation. Lane and Helm refer to the more recent translation in J.K.S. Reid, Theological Treatises, p. 285.
⁶Kendall briefly refers to Cunningham’s article but has been chided in reviews for failing to discuss this quotation. Cunningham: ‘We do not recollect to have seen it adverted to except by a single popish writer’ (Reformers, p. 396).
⁷Lane seems to imply this (p. 30) as well as Strong (p. 778)-only the latter does so in reverse, that Calvin changed from Particularism to Universalism. In this, Strong is followed by those such as Baker who rely on his evidence, which has been shown to be faulty.
⁸Hodge, The Atonement, pp. 359 – 360. Cf. Helm, Calvin, p. 13. Is it possible that Calvin’s ‘unguarded manner’ is due to his less Scholastic approach? Kendall and others contend that Particularist Calvinists rely on Scholastic logic. Crisp’s bold style is certainly not Scholastic; we feel that it has more in common with that of Luther and that of Calvin. See Chapter 11 above.
⁹Three notable studies should be consulted; McDonnell, John Calvin, the Church and The Eucharist; Wallace, Calvin’s Doctrine of the Word and Sacrament; and Barclay, The Protestant Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper. See also the relevant sections in the biographies and general studies of Calvin. Fortunately, Calvin himself wrote at length on the subject, so the researcher has a plethora of material to study.
¹⁰Cf. Institutes, IV, 17, 33; Comm on John 6, etc. Though we eat Christ by faith, faith itself is not the eating (Comm on John 6:35), for ‘spiritually to eat the flesh of Christ is something greater and more excellent than to believe’ (Tracts and Treatises, vol. II, p. 553) and ‘eating differs from faith, inasmuch as it is an effect of faith’ (ibid., p. 283).
¹¹IV, 17, 33. In at least two other places in his works Calvin uses this phrase ‘I should like to know’ with reference to the Supper. ‘I should like to know to what end Christ invites us to partake of his flesh and blood in the Supper, if it be not that he may feed our souls’ (Tracts and Treatises, vol. II, p. 378). Note that the second clause includes what Calvin denies (‘if it be not . . .’). Later he says this: ‘I should like to know whether, according to them, this communion belongs indiscriminately to unbelievers as well as to believers’ (ibid., p. 415). Again he rejects what is in the query, for Calvin holds that the communion belongs only to believers.
¹²In the Treatises quotation, Battles/Reid correctly omit the question mark which the CTS translator inserts. Both are, in fact, sentences which are rhetorical enquiries. Recognizing the form of the construction, we feel, is vital. For example, Alan Clifford (in private correspondence) exegetes the passages differently from ourselves while denying that the passage restricts the atonement in the way thought by Cunningham and Helm. Clifford feels that the clause ‘as he adheres so doggedly to the words’ means that ‘the flesh’ in the second clause refers to the literal element in the Supper rather than that which was crucified for them. He paraphrases the passage thus: ‘If our Lord’s words are to be taken literally, are we to imagine that the actual bread and the actual wine about which he spoke were crucified? How can the wicked (or anyone else for that matter) eat that “blood” since the elements themselves were not “crucified” for their sins. Christ himself was crucified for them, not the symbolic elements.’ Clifford sees the debate at this juncture as centering around Consubstantiation rather than faith, if we understand him rightly. There is something to be said for his interpretation, but we feel it does not do full justice to the rhetorical construction, the flow of Calvin’s argument, or the parallel passages. Doyle seems to follow our interpretation: ‘Calvin is using a stunning piece of hyperbole, which for its potency depends, in turn, on a belief in a universal scope of the atonement’ (p. 277). And yet Doyle hesitates on this, adding that this is a ‘blunt denial’ that Christ died for the wicked and that ‘here Calvin flatly contradicts himself, perhaps due to the heated and protracted nature of the controversy he is conducting with Heshusius’ (pp. 276-277). Unfortunately, Doyle does not elaborate his views. Bell also thinks that this is hyperbole (p. 17).
¹³Comm on I Cor. 11:24. Cf. Kendall, p. 18. The mirror motif is prominent in Calvin’s works. Christ is the mirror of God and man; only through Christ does man know God and thereby know himself. Christ is the mirror of election, therefore He is also the pledge of salvation (Predestination, p. 127). He is also the mirror and pledge of divine love and grace (Comm on John 15:9) and the Gospel is the mirror in which we see Christ (Letters, vol. III, p. 23). Hence, one knows Christ and God through the Gospel but this faith must include the persuasion ‘Christ died for me’ because the mirror also shows us ourselves. The supper is, as it were, a visible picture of the Gospel and therefore true partaking includes faith that Christ died for oneself. ‘Now our heavenly Father, to succour us in this, gives us the Supper as a mirror, in which we may contemplate our Lord Jesus Christ, crucified to take away our faults and offences’ (Tracts and Treatises, vol. II, p. 168). And ‘the Supper is given us as a mirror in which we may contemplate Jesus Christ crucified in order to deliver us from condemnation’ (ibid., p. 169). Similarly, ‘the Supper is a solemn memorial of the redemption which has been purchased for us’ (ibid., p. 210). Since redemption is by grace, the sacraments are ‘mirrors in which we may contemplate the riches of the grace which God bestows upon us’ (Institutes, IV, 14, 6).
¹⁴ Sermons on Isaiah, p. 117 (cf. pp. 128, 131). See also Comm on John 3:16, ‘faith embraces Christ with the efficacy of His death’. Similarly, Sermons on Deuteronomy, p. 299. See chapter IX, Section C and below.
¹⁵Comm on Mark 14:24. Note the explicit Universalism (see above). The Commentary on the parallel in Matt. 26:26 adds little to our discussion at this point except to reaffirm that true eating is by faith. Cf. Sermons on Galatians, pp. 106-107.
¹⁶The faith of justification is ‘not doubting but that our sins are forgiven us for our Lord Jesus Christ’s sake’, with special reference to the atonement, meaning faith that says ‘I believe in Christ who died for me’ (Sermons on Deuteronomy, p. 167). The Roman Catholic error of justification is reflected in its wrong view of the Supper and its statements about faith and the atonement. The Mass re-crucifies Christ and thereby rejects the only atonement. Faith, therefore, becomes impossible because the Mass is substituted for the atonement. ‘By means whereof the death and passion of our Lord Jesus Christ was utterly defaced, in spite of the redemption that he had wrought. Inasmuch that if it be admitted that Jesus Christ was sacrificed daily; it is all one to reject the benefit that was purchased us by his death and passion’ (Sermons on Deuteronomy, p. 311).
¹⁷ Also: ‘Indeed the death of Christ was death for the whole world, and that is surely supernatural’ (Comm on Heb. 8:2). Christ is portrayed in the Supper, therefore ‘We maintain that in the sacrament Christ is eaten in no other way but spiritually’ (Tracts and Treatises, vol. II, p. 374). In order for one to eat spiritually one must have the Holy Spirit. Calvin therefore rebukes those who ‘insist that Christ is received by the wicked, to whom they do not concede on particle of the Spirit of Christ’ (ibid., p. 234). And in a nearly exact parallel to the passages in dispute, Calvin again stresses the place of the Spirit: ‘And in fact it were grossly absurd to hold that Jesus Christ is received by those who are entire strangers to him, and that the wicked eat his body and drink his blood while destitute of his Spirit. . . . Their offence then is that they rejected Christ when he was presented to them’ in the Gospel (ibid., p. 158). They eat unworthily not because they eat elements which portray what was not crucified for them, but because they do not have the Spirit, because they do not believe that Christ was crucified for them, and because they do not believe the Gospel. Cf. Institutes, IV, 17, 33.
¹⁸Union to Christ is vital to true partaking, for it is associated with believing that Christ died for oneself (cf. Gal. 12:20). Calvin explains: ‘We confess that the holy supper of our Lord is a testimony of the union which we have with Jesus Christ, inasmuch as not only he died and rose from the dead for us, but also truly feeds and nourishes us with his flesh’ (Letters, vol. III, p. 376). Also, ‘under the symbols of bread and wine an exhibition of the body and blood of Christ is held forth; and we are not merely reminded that Christ was once offered on the cross for us, but that sacred union is ratified to which it is owing that his death is our life’ (Tracts and Treatises, vol. II, p. 574). This principle is shown in the reverse in the example of Judas. He was at the Supper and ate the elements but he did this wickedly because he was never in union with Christ, neither did he truly believe in Him. Therefore Judas did not feed on Christ, as Peter did. Most Particularists deny that Judas was at the Table (see Chapter IX), but Calvin explicitly says that he was (e.g., Tracts and Treatises, vol. II. pp. 93, 234, 297, 370-371, 378; Comm on Matt. 26:21, John 6:56). Kuiper mentions that Calvin felt that Judas was there but not in union with Christ, but Kuiper fails to see the problem (For Whom Did Christ Die?, p. 66). The problem for Particularists is that at the Supper Christ said, ‘This is my body, which is broken for you’. If Judas was there, Christ therefore said that He died for him. And if He died for Judas, then it was not for the elect alone, for Judas was not elect. But this was no problem for Calvin. Luther, another Universalist, also held that Judas was present. But Bucer questions this, adding that in any case the words of the ‘Bold Proclamation’ did not apply to Judas. See Common Places, pp. 330-332; and chapter IX above.
¹⁹ Kendall, p. 13. Kendall’s study on Calvin and the atonement is very brief but it is the first chapter of what has proven to be a very controversial book. Yet evidently he saw some of the implications of Calvin’s doctrines of faith and assurance which we have investigated in this paper.
²⁰Souce: A. C. Clifford’s Atonement and Justification (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1990), p. 87.
²¹G. Michael Thomas, The Extent of the Atonement (Paternoster Publishing, 1997), 39–40.
²²Selected Works,2:525.

23 Comments

Dec

John Calvin on Divine Mercy

Posted by: CalvinandCalvinism in God is Merciful

Commentaries (sample)

1) A great proportion of men obstinately resist and reject the government of God. Hence the Psalmist was forced to exhibit God in his severer aspect, to teach the wicked that their perverse opposition will not pass unpunished. When God draws near to men in mercy, and they fail to welcome him with becoming reverence and respect, this implies impiety of a very aggravated description; on which account it is that the language of denunciation suits with the kingdom of Christ. The Psalmist intimates that those who should despise God in the person of his only-begotten Son, will feel in due time and certainly the awful weight of his majesty. So much is implied in the expression used The earth SHALL SEE. For the wicked, when they find that their attempts are vain in fighting against God, resort to subterfuge and concealment. The Psalmist declares that they would not succeed by any such vain artifice in hiding themselves from God. Calvin, Psalms 97:1-5.

2) “He sendeth his word.” Again, in saying that they are delivered from destruction, the prophet shows that he is here alluding to those diseases which, in the opinion of men, are incurable, and from which few are delivered. Besides, he contrasts God’s assistance with all the remedies which are in the power of man to apply; as if he should say, that their disease having baffled the skill of earthly physicians, their recovery has been entirely owing to the exertion of God’s power. It is proper also to notice the manner in which their recovery is effected; God has but to will it, or to speak the word, and instantly all diseases, and even death itself, are expelled. I do not regard this as exclusively referring to the faithful, as many expositors do. I own, indeed, that it is of comparatively little consequence to us to be the subjects of bodily care, if our souls still remain unsanctified by the word of God; and hence it is the intention of the prophet that we consider the mercy of God as extending to the evil and unthankful. Calvin, Psalms 107:20.

3) “O Jehovah! the earth is full of thy mercy.” Here the prophet beseeches God, in the exercise of his infinite goodness, which is reflected in every part of the world, graciously to make him a partaker of the treasure of heavenly wisdom a manner of prayer which is very emphatic. When, therefore, he says that the earth is full of God’s mercy, it is a kind of earnest entreaty. He not only magnifies the goodness of God, in general, (as he does in other places,) in leaving no part of the world devoid of the proofs of his liberality, and in exercising it not only towards mankind, but also towards the brute creation. What does he then? He desires that the mercy of God, which is extended to all creatures, may be manifested towards him in one thing, and that is, by enabling him to make progress in the knowledge of the Divine law. Whence we gather, that he accounted the gift of understanding as an inestimable treasure. No if to be endued with the spirit of understanding is a chief token of God’s favor, our want of this, proceeding from our own unbelief, is an indication of our alienation from him. It behooves us to remember what we have stated elsewhere, that it is an evidence that we have given ourselves up to the most shameful sloth, when, contented with a superficial knowledge of Divine truth, we are, in a great measure, indifferent about making further progress, seeing so renowned a teacher of the Church labored with the greatest ardor to become more and more acquainted with God’s statutes. Besides, it is certain that he does not here treat of external teaching, but of the inward illumination of the mind, which is the gift of the Holy Spirit. The law was exhibited to all without distinction; but the prophet, well aware that unless he were enlightened by the Holy Spirit, it would be of little advantage to him, prays that he may be taught effectually by supernatural influence. Calvin, Psalms 119:64.

4) “O Jehovah! what is man, etc.” He amplifies the goodness shown by God by instituting a comparison. Having declared how singularly he had been dealt with, he turns his eyes inward, and asks, “Who am I, that God should show me such condescension? ” He speaks of man in general; only the circumstance is noticeable that he commends the mercy of God, by considering his lowly and abject condition. In other places he mentions grounds of humiliation of a more personal or private nature, here he confines himself to what has reference to our common nature; and though even in discussing the nature of man there are other reasons he might have specified why he is unworthy of the regard and love of God, he briefly adverts to his being like the smoke, and as a shadow. We are left to infer that the riches of the divine goodness are extended to objects altogether unworthy in themselves. We are warned, when apt at any time to forget ourselves, and think we are something when we are nothing, that the simple fact of the shortness of our life should put down all arrogance and pride. The Scriptures, in speaking of the frailty of man, comprehend whatever is necessarily connected with it. And, indeed, if our life vanish in a moment, what is there stable about us? We taught this truth also that we cannot properly estimate the divine goodness, unless we take into consideration what we are as to our condition, as we can only ascribe to God what is due unto him, by acknowledging that his goodness is bestowed upon undeserving creatures. The reader may seek for further information upon this point in the eighth Psalm, where nearly the same truth is insisted upon. Calvin, Psalms 144:3.

5) “Happy the people, etc.” He thus concludes that the divine favor had been sufficiently shown and manifested to his people. Should any object that it breathed altogether a gross and worldly spirit to estimate man’s happiness by benefits of a transitory description, I would say in reply that we must read the two things in connection, that those are happy who recognize the favor of God in the abundance they enjoy, and have such a sense of it from these transitory blessings as leads them through a persuasion of his fatherly love to aspire after the true inheritance. There is no impropriety in calling those happy whom God blesses in this world, provided they do not show themselves blinded in the improvement and use which they make of their mercies, or foolishly and supinely overlook the author of them. The kind providence of God in not suffering us to want any of the means of life is surely a striking illustration of his wonderful love. What more desirable than to be the objects of God’s care, especially if we have sufficient understanding to conclude from the liberality with which he supports us he is our Father? For everything is to be viewed with a reference to this point. Better it were at once to perish for want than have a mere brute satisfaction, and forget the main thing of all, that they and they only are happy whom God has chosen for his people. We are to observe this, that while God in giving us meat and drink admits us to the enjoyment of a certain measure of happiness, it does not follow that those believers are miserable who struggle through life in want and poverty, for this want, whatever it be, God can counterbalance by better consolations. Calvin, Psalms 144:15.

institutes

1) Belonging to this theme are the praises of God’s power from the testimonies of nature which one meets here and there especially indeed in The Book of Job and in Isaiah. These I now intentionally pass over, for they will find a more appropriate place where I shall discuss from the Scriptures the creation of the universe Now I have only wanted to touch upon the fact that this way of seeking God is common both to strangers and to those of his household, if they trace the outlines that above and below sketch a living likeness of him. This very might leads us to ponder his eternity; for he from whom all things draw their origin must be eternal and have beginning from himself. Furthermore, if the cause is sought by which he was led once to create all these things, and is now moved to preserve them, we shall find that it is his goodness alone. But this being the sole cause, it ought still to be more than sufficient to draw us to his love, inasmuch as there is no creature, as the prophet declares, upon whom God’s mercy has not been poured out [Psalm 145:9; cf. Ecclesiasticus 18:11; 18:9, Vg.]. Calvin, Institutes 1.5.6.

mercy to israel

commentaries

1) “Neither go”, he says, “to lament, nor be moved on their account”. and why? “or I have taken away my peace from this people,”that is, all prosperity; for under the term, peace, the Jews included whatever was desirable. God then says, that he had taken away peace from them, and his peace, because he had pronounced that wicked nation accursed. He then adds, that he had taken away his kindness and his mercies. For the Prophet might have raised an objection and said, that this was not consistent with the nature of God, who testifies that he is ready to shew mercy; but God meets this objection and intimates, that there was now no place for kindness and mercy, for the impiety of the people had become past all hope.Calvin, Jeremiah 16:5.

[a work in progress]

No Comments

Dec

James Richards (1767-1843) on Calvin on the Atonement

Posted by: CalvinandCalvinism in Pre- and Post-20th Century Historiography on Calvin on the Extent of the Atonement

Richards:

But some may be curious to know in what light this subject was viewed by Calvin, a man who, from the extent of his erudition, and the vigor of his faculties, exerted a mighty influence over his cotemporaries, and the generations which succeeded him. Seldom, indeed, has the world seen such a man. Fearless, as he was able, he examined every subject with care, and penetrated farther into the great doctrines of the Gospel, probably, than any other divine of that or of preceding ages. What did he think of the doctrine of atonement? Did he consider it in the light of a universal provision for the whole human race, or did he suppose it restricted in its very nature to the elect? In his Institutes, which he wrote in early life, and which display an astonishing measure both of talent and research, some have supposed that he favored the doctrine of a particular or limited atonement. The truth, however, is, so far as I can judge, that he carefully avoids committing himself on this point, and uses language on all occasions of such a general and indeterminate character, that it is not easy to discover what were his real sentiments. The probability is, that the subject had not then been much agitated, and that he thought it enough to keep to the language which was generally adopted by the Church. He often asserts that the death of Christ was a full and perfect sacrifice for sin—that it takes away sin—that he died for us—and that we are purged by his blood; but he does not teach that any man’s sins are put away until he believes, but he plainly teaches the contrary. Having occasion to quote these words of the Apostle, “Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood,” he remarks, “Here Paul celebrates the grace of God, because he has given the price of our redemption in the death of Christ; and then enjoins us to betake ourselves to his blood, that we may obtain righteousness, and may stand secure before the judgment of God.” But why betake ourselves to his blood, that we may obtain righteousness or justification, if his death, considered simply as a sin-offering, actually took away our sin, and reconciled us to God? For myself, I have no doubt that he considered the sprinkling of Christ’s blood as essential to a real and effective propitiation as the shedding of it. His blood shed was the meritorious cause of our reconciliation, or the grand means by which it was effected; but this effect was never actually produced but in cases where his blood was sprinkled or applied, and that this blood is applied in no case antecedent to faith, and without faith. His doctrine, then, appears to me to be this: That Christ’s death was the only full and perfect sacrifice for sin; that as such, it laid the foundation for God to be propitious to a world of sinners, even the whole human family; but that it actually reconciled him to none, so as to take away their sin and entitle them to life, till they repented and believed; but that to all such there is an actual propitiation, an effective reconcilement or at-one-ment, because by faith they lay their hands upon the head of the bleeding victim, and his blood is sprinkled upon them or applied to their souls. But whatever might have been his opinions in early life, his commentaries, which were the labors of his riper years, demonstrate in the most unequivocal manner that he received and taught the doctrine of a general or universal atonement. This is distinctly asserted by Dr. Watts, and several striking examples of his interpretation given. But having examined for myself, I am prepared to say that he takes the ground of an universal atonement in almost every controverted text on this subject in the New Testament. Hear him on Matthew xxvi. 28: “This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” “Under the name of many,” says Calvin, ” he designates not a part of the world only, but the whole human race. For he opposes many to one, as if he should say he would be the Redeemer, not of one man, but would suffer death that he might liberate many from the guilt of the curse. Nor is it to be doubted that Christ, in addressing the few, designed to make his doctrine common to the many. Nevertheless, it is at the same time to be noted, that in distinctly addressing his disciples in Luke, he exhorts all the faithful to appropriate the shedding of his blood to their own use. While, therefore, we approach the sacred table, not only this general thought should come into the mind, that the world is redeemed by Christ’s blood, but that every one for himself should reckon his own sins to be expiated.” He expounds John iii. 16 in accordance with the same views. ” God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life.” By the world, according to him, we are to understand “genus humanum,” the human race collectively, and not the elect as a distinct portion of the world. God hath affixed, saith he, a mark of universality to his words on this occasion,” both that he might invite all promiscuously to the participation of life, and that he might cut off excuse to the unbelieving;” and this universality is indicated, he tells us, not only by the term whosoever, but by the term world. ” For though God finds nothing in the world worthy of his favor, nevertheless he shows himself propitious to the whole world, since he calls all men without exception to faith in Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.”

His remarks on 1 Corinthians viii. 11, 12, are still more decisive. “And through thy knowledge shall thy weak brother perish for whom Christ died.” Here the question is, what is meant by the weak brother perishing? Calvin’s paraphrase is, “If the soul of every weak person was the purchaser of the blood of Christ, he that for the sake of a little meat plunges his brother again into death who was redeemed by Christ, shows at how mean a rate he esteems the blood of Christ.” His observations on Hebrews x. 26, are of the same decisive character. Paul declares “that if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins.” This Calvin interpreted of those who openly apostatize from the truth and renounce their Christian profession—and to such, he says, there is no more a sacrifice for sins, because they have departed from the death of Christ and treated it with sacrilegious contempt—to sinners of any other description, even to lapsed Christians “Christ daily offers himself, so that no other sacrifice need to be sought for the expiation of their sins.”

It is obvious that Calvin considered apostates as standing in a different relation to the death of Christ from what they once did, and different from that of other sinners under the dispensation of the Gospel. That once his death might be regarded as a sacrifice for sin, available for them, but now it was otherwise ; having despised him and being rejected of God, there remained to them neither this sacrifice nor any other, but only a fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation which shall consume the adversaries.

Again, on 1 John ii. 2, “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world.” Here,” says Calvin, “a question is raised, how the sins of the whole world were atoned for? Some have said that Christ suffered for the whole world sufficiently, but for the elect alone efficaciously. This is the common solution of the schools, and though I confess this is a truth, yet I do not think it agrees to this place.”

See also on 2 Peter ii. 1, “There shall be false teachers among you who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.” Upon this, Calvin remarks, “Though Christ is denied in various ways, yet, in my opinion, Peter means the same thing here that Jude expresses, namely, that the grace of God is turned into lasciviousness. For Christ has redeemed us that he might have a people free from the defilements of the world, and devoted to holiness and innocence. Whoever, therefore, shake off the yoke and throw themselves into all licentiousness, are justly said to deny Christ, by whom they were redeemed.” To the same purpose are his remarks on Jude, verse fourth: ” Turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.” “His meaning is,” says Calvin, “that Christ is really denied when those who were redeemed by his blood again enslave themselves to the devil, and as far as in them lies, make that incomparable price vain and ineffectual.” It is but candid, however, to allow that in some passages where the word all is brought into question, this writer supposes that it signifies all of every kind, or all sorts, rather than all, every one. But this he might easily do and consistently maintain as the doctrine of the New Testament, that the death of Christ was a full and perfect sacrifice for the sins of all men absolutely. This doctrine he most certainly did maintain, as several of the extracts from his writings now presented clearly evince. We need not be afraid, therefore, that our Calvinism will be essentially marred by holding the doctrine of a general propitiation, unless we wish to be more Calvinistic than John Calvin himself. But as we should call no man master, upon earth, but examine for ourselves, and take our opinions from the living oracles, let us hear what the Scriptures say upon this subject. To facilitate our inquiries, I propose to consider the truth of the following positions: First. That the death of Christ was a true and proper sacrifice for sin. Second. That though his death was of vicarious import, as were the ancient sin-offerings, yet it was not strictly vicarious. Third. That this sacrifice bore such a relation to the sins of men, that a way was thereby opened for the restoration of the whole human family to the favor of God.

James Richards, Lectures on Mental Philosophy and Theology, (New York: M.W. Dodd, 1846), 306-311.

* * * * * *

[Notes: 1) For more on Richard’s theology as a moderate Calvinist on the expiation see: Welsh, R.B. “Rev. Dr. James Richards and His Theology,” The Presbyterian Review 5, no 19 (1884) : 401-442.

2) Supporting documentation from Calvin:

When ‘the many’ means all:

sermons:

1. That, then, is how our Lord Jesus bore the sins and iniquities of many. But in fact, this word “many” is often as good as equivalent to “all“. And indeed, our Lord Jesus was offered to all the world. For it is not speaking of three or four when it says: ‘For God so loved the world, that he spared not His only Son.” But yet we must notice that the Evangelist adds in this passage: “That whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but obtain eternal life.” Our Lord Jesus suffered for all, and there is neither great nor small who is not inexcusable today, for we can obtain salvation through him. Unbelievers who turn away from Him and who deprive themselves of him by their malice are today doubly culpable. For how will they excuse their ingratitude in not receiving the blessing in which the could share by faith? Calvin, Sermons on Isaiah’s Prophecy of the Death and Passion of Christ, 52:12, p., 140-1.

commentaries:

2. I have followed the ordinary interpretation, that “he bore the sin of many,” though we might without impropriety consider the Hebrew word (rabbim,) to denote “Great and Noble.” And thus the contrast would be more complete, that Christ, while “he was ranked among transgressors,” became surety for every one of the most excellent of the earth, and suffered in the room of those who hold the highest rank in the world. I leave this to the judgment of my readers. Yet I approve of the ordinary reading, that he alone bore the punishment of many, because on him was laid the guilt of the whole world. It is evident from other passages, and especially from the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, that “many” sometimes denotes “all.” Calvin, Isa. 53:12.

3. “And to give his life a ransom for many.” Christ mentioned his death, as we have said, in order to withdraw his disciples from the foolish imagination of an earthly kingdom. But it is a just and appropriate statement of its power and results, when he declares that his life is the price of our redemption; whence it follows, that we obtain an undeserved reconciliation with God, the price of which is to be found nowhere else than in the death of Christ. Wherefore, this single word overturns all the idle talk of the Papists about their abominable satisfactions. Again, while Christ has purchased us by his death to be his property, this submission, of which he speaks, is so far from diminishing his boundless glory, that it greatly increases its splendor. The word “many” (pollon) is not put definitely for a fixed number, but for a large number; for he contrasts himself with all others. And in this sense it is used in Romans 5:15, where Paul does not speak of any part of men, but embraces the whole human race. Calvin, Matt 20:28.

4. “Which is shed for many.” By the word “many” he means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race; for he contrasts many with one; as if he had said, that he will not be the Redeemer of one man only, but will die in order to deliver many from the condemnation of the curse. It must at the same time be observed, however, that by the words for you, as related by Luke–Christ directly addresses the disciples, and exhorts every believer to apply to his own advantage the shedding of blood Therefore, when we approach to the holy table, let us not only remember in general that the world has been redeemed by the blood of Christ, but let every one consider for himself that his own sins have been expiated. Calvin, Mark 14:24.

5. “To bear,” or, “take away sins”, is to free from guilt by his satisfaction those who have sinned. He says the sins of many, that is, of all, as in Romans 5:15. It is yet certain that not all receive benefit from the death of Christ; but this happens, because their unbelief prevents them. At the same time this question is not to be discussed here, for the Apostle is not speaking of the few or of the many to whom the death of Christ may be available; but he simply means that he died for others and not for himself; and therefore he opposes many to one. Calvin, Heb. 9:28.

Calvin on John 3:16, cf.

Redeemed brothers perishing:

1. The next thing is–that when the weak conscience is wounded, the price of Christ’s blood is wasted; for the most abject brother has been redeemed by the blood of Christ: it is then a heinous crime to destroy him by gratifying the stomach. Calvin, Rom. 14:15.

2. There is, however, still greater force in what follows–that even those that are ignorant or weak have been redeemed with the blood of Christ; for nothing were more unseemly than this, that while Christ did not hesitate to die, in order that the weak might not perish, we, on the other hand, reckon as nothing the salvation of those who have been redeemed with so great a price. A memorable saying, by which we are taught how precious the salvation of our brethren ought to be in our esteem, and not merely that of all, but of each individual in particular, inasmuch as the blood of Christ was poured out for each individual… For if the soul of every one that is weak is the price of Christ’s blood, that man, who, for the sake of a very small portion of meat, hurries back again to death the brother who has been redeemed by Christ, shows how contemptible the blood of Christ is in his view. Calvin, 1 Cor 8:11 & 12.

Suffered sufficiently for the whole world:

1. Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretense extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself. Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation. They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world. For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only true salvation of the world. Calvin, 1 John 2:2.

Apostates redeemed:

1. Though Christ may be denied in various ways, yet Peter, as I think, refers here to what is expressed by Jude, that is, when the grace of God is turned into lasciviousness; for Christ redeemed us, that he might have a people separated from all the pollutions of the world, and devoted to holiness ,and innocency. They, then, who throw off the bridle, and give themselves up to all kinds of licentiousness, are not unjustly said to deny Christ by whom they have been redeemed. Calvin, 2 Peter 2:1.

2. “The only Lord God,” or, God who alone is Lord. Some old copies have, “Christ, who alone is God and Lord.” And, indeed, in the Second Epistle of Peter, Christ alone is mentioned, and there he is called Lord. But He means that Christ is denied, when they who had been redeemed by his blood, become again the vassals of the Devil, and thus render void as far as they can that incomparable price. Calvin, Jude 4.]

No Comments

Dec

James Richards on the Extent of the Atonement

Posted by: CalvinandCalvinism in Historiography

WHETHER Christ died for all men, or for a part only? is a question which has been much agitated, since the Reformation, though, according to Milner, the Church, from the earliest ages, rested in the opinion that Christ died for all. He does not except even Augustine, whom Prosper, his admirer and follower, and a strict Predestinarian, represents as maintaining that Christ gave himself a ransom for all [*Vol. II, page 445]; so far, at least, as to make provision for their salvation, by removing an impediment which would otherwise have proved fatal. The early Christians seemed to go upon the principle, that as salvation was indiscriminately tendered to all, it must havebeen provided for all, and thus made physically possible to all, where the Gospel comes; otherwise, the Deity would be represented as tendering that to his creatures which was in no sense within their reach, and which they could not possibly attain, whatever might be their dispositions.

Among those who leaned strongly to what are called the doctrines of grace, the maxim was adopted, “That Christ’s death was sufficient for all, and efficient for the elect” By which they seem to have intended, that while Christ’s death opened the door for the salvation of all, so far as an expiatory sacrifice was concerned, it was designed, and by the sovereign grace of God, made effectual, to the salvation of the elect. Their belief was, that Christ died intentionally to save those who were given to him in the covenant of redemption; but it does not appear that they supposed his death, considered merely as an expiatory offering, had any virtue in it, in relation to the elect, which it had not in relation to the rest of mankind. With respect to the ultimate design of this sacrifice, or the application which God would make of it, they doubtless supposed there was a difference; but in the sacrifice itself, or in its immediate end, the demonstration of God’s righteousness, they could see no difference. In this view, it was precisely the same thing, as it stood related to the elect and to the non-elect. The sacrificial service was one and the same, appointed by the same authority, and for the same immediate purpose, and performed by the same glorious Personage, at the very same time. It wanted nothing to constitute it a true and perfect sacrifice for sin, as it stood related to the whole world; it was but this true and perfect sacrifice, as it stood related to the elect. Any other view would have overturned its sufficiency for all mankind; for it was not the sufficiency of Christ to be a sacrifice, but his sufficiency as a sacrifice for the whole world, that they maintained. And in perfect accordance with this, they held that this most perfect sacrifice was efficient for the elect. But how was it efficient? Not by its having in it anything in regard to the elect which it had not in regard to others; for, intrinsically considered, it was the same to both, a true and perfect sacrifice for sin; but it was the purpose of God, in appointing it, that it should issue in the salvation of his chosen. This was the use he intended to make of it; nay, it was a part of the covenant of redemption, that if the Mediator performed the sacrificial service required, he should see of the travail of his soul, and be satisfied. There was, therefore, an infallible connection between the death of Christ and the salvation of his people; and, of course, his death was efficient in procuring their salvation, it being the great medium through which the saving mercy of God flowed, and connected both by the purpose and promise of God with the bestowment of that mercy.

But even all this does not suppose that the death of Christ, considered simply as a sacrifice for sin, had anything in it peculiar to the elect, or that in and of itself it did anything for them which it did not do for the rest of mankind. The intention of God, as to its application, or the use he designed to make of it, is a thing perfectly distinct from the sacrifice itself, and so considered, as we believe, by the Church antecedent to the Reformation. In no other way, can we see, how their language is either intelligible or consistent. Whether the Reformers, as they are called, were exactly of one mind on this subject, is not quite so certain. But that Luther, Melancthon, Osiander, Brentius, OEcolampadius, Zwinglius and Bucer, held the doctrine of a general atonement, there is no reason to doubt. We might infer it from their Confession at Marpurge, signed A . D. 1529, as the expressions they employ on this subject are of a comprehensive character, and best agree with this sentiment. From their subsequent writings, however, it is manifest that these men, and the German Reformers generally, embraced the doctrine of a universal propitiation.

Thus, also, it was with their immediate successors, as the language of the Psalgrave Confession testifies. This Confession is entitled, “A Full Declaration of the Faith and Ceremonies professed in the dominions of the most illustrious and noble Prince Frederick V., Prince Elector Palatine.” It was translated by John Rolte, and published in London, A.D, 1614.

“Of the power and death of Christ, believe we,” say these German Christians, that the death of Christ (whilst he being not a bare man, but the Son of God, died,) is a full, all-sufficient payment, not only for our sins, but for the sins of the whole world; and that he by his death hath purchased not only forgiveness of sins, but also the new birth by the Holy Ghost, and lastly everlasting life.” But we believe therewith, that no man shall be made partaker of such a benefit, but only he that believeth on him. For the Scripture is plain where it saith, ” He that believeth not shall be damned.” It would be unnecessary to take up your time to show that the Lutheran divines, with scarcely a single exception, from that period to the present, have declared in favor of a universal atonement. It could scarcely be otherwise when we consider the great reverence in which they held their distinguished leader, who, on various occasions, expressed himself most decidedly upon this subject. To give but a single instance. While speaking of the blood of Christ, the inestimable price paid for our redemption, (in his commentary on 1 Peter, i. 18,) he remarks that no understanding or reason of man can comprehend it: so valuable was it, “that a single drop of this most innocent and precious blood was abundantly sufficient for the sins of the whole world. But it pleased the Father so largely to bestow his grace upon us, and to make such abundant provision for our salvation, that he willed that Christ his Son should pour forth all his blood, and at the same time to give this whole treasure to us.”

We know what the opinion of the Church of England was, by the language of her thirty-first article, which is in these words: “The offering of Christ once made, is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone;” and with this agree the words of the Heidelberg Catechism, in the thirty-seventh question, which state that ” Christ bore, both in body and mind, the weight of the wrath of God, for the sins of all mankind,” to the end that by his sufferings as a propitiatory sacrifice, he might redeem our bodies and souls from eternal damnation, and acquire for us the grace of God, justification and eternal life.” We are well aware that many who have expounded this catechism, have adopted more limited views; and that towards the close of the sixteenth century, there was not a little zeal displayed, in some of the Reformed Churches, in Germany and Holland, and other parts of Europe, in defense of what was called particular redemption. Yet, in the Synod of Dort, there were many able advocates for the doctrine that Christ died for all, in the only sense in which it is contended for now, by that part of the Calvinistic school who plead for a general propitiation. The delegates from England, Hesse and Bremen, were explicit in their declaration to this effect. But all were not of the same mind; and, therefore, though they agreed upon a form of words, under which every man might take shelter, still it wears the appearance of a compromise, and is not sufficiently definite to satisfy the rigid inquirer.

James Richards, Lectures on Mental Philosophy and Theology, (New York: M.W. Dodd, 1846, 302-306.

No Comments

Dec

Charles Hodge on 1 Tim 2:4: Common Sense Exegesis

Posted by: CalvinandCalvinism in 1 Timothy 2:4-6

C. Hodge:

XII. “Who will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” 1 Tim. 2: 4.
[March 1st, 1868.]

There are two principles which must control the interpretation of the Scriptures. That is, when a passage admits of two interpretations, the choice between them is to be determined, first, by the analogy of Scripture. If one interpretation contradicts what the Bible elsewhere teaches and another accords with it, then we are bound to accept the latter. Or, secondly, the interpretation must be decided by established facts. That is, if one interpretation agrees with such facts and another contradicts them, then the former must be true.

This passage admits of two interpretations so far as the signification of the words are concerned. First, that God wills, in the sense of purposing or intending, the salvation of all men. This cannot be true, first, because it contradicts the Scriptures. The Scriptures teach 1st, that the purposes of God are immutable, and that they cannot fail of their accomplishment. 2d. That all men are not to be saved. It is clearly taught that multitudes of the human race have perished, are now perishing, and will hereafter perish. That God intends and purposes what he knows is not to happen, is a contradiction. It contradicts the very idea of God, and is an impossibility, Secondly, this interpretation contradicts admitted facts as well as the explicit statements of the Bible.

1. It is a fact that God does not give saving grace to all men. 2. It is a fact that he does not and never has brought all men to the knowledge of the truth. Multitudes of men are destitute of that knowledge, and ever have been. By truth it is clear the apostle means saving truth, the truth as revealed in the gospel, and not merely the truth as revealed by things that are made. This interpretation therefore cannot be correct.

The second interpretation is that God desires the salvation of all men. This means 1st, just what is said when the Scriptures declare that God is good; that he is merciful and gracious, and ready to forgive; that he is good to all, and his tender mercies over all his works. He is kind to the unthankful and to the evil. This goodness or benevolence of God is not only declared but revealed in his works, in his providence, and in the work of redemption. 2d. It means what is said in Ezek. xxxiii. 11. “As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked,” and in Ezek. xviii. 23, “Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die, saith the Lord God, and not that he should return from his ways and live ?” Also Lam. iii. 33, “For he doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men.” It means what Christ taught in the parable of the prodigal son, and of the lost sheep and the lost piece of money; and is taught by his lament over Jerusalem.

All these passages teach that God delights in the happiness of his creatures, and that when he permits them to perish, or inflicts evil upon them, it is from some inexorable necessity; that is, because it would be unwise and wrong to do otherwise. His relation is that of a benevolent sovereign in punishing crime, or of a tender judge in passing sentence on offenders, or, what is the familiar representation of Scripture, that of a father who deals with his children with tenderness, yet with wisdom and according to the dictates of right.

This is the meaning of the passage. That it is the correct one is plain, 1. Because it is agreeable to the meaning of the word thelein. In innumerable cases it means to love, delight in, to regard with satisfaction as a thing desirable. “Sacrifice and offerings thou wouldst not,” “neither hadst pleasure therein.” “Ye cannot do the things that ye would.” “For what I would, that do I not, but what I hate, that I do.” “We would see a sign from thee.” “Be it unto thee even as thou wilt.” ” If he delight in him” is ei thelei auton. 2. This passage thus interpreted teaches just what the Scriptures elsewhere teach of the goodness of God. 3. It does not contradict the Scriptures as the other does, or make God mutable or impotent. 4. It is accordant with all known facts. It agrees with the fact, that God is benevolent, as shown in his works, and yet that he permits many to perish.

This truth is of great importance, 1. Because all religion is founded on the knowledge of God and on the proper apprehensions of his character. We should err fatally if we conceived of God as malevolent.

2. The conviction that God is love, that he is a kind Father, is necessary to encourage sinners to repent. The prodigal hesitated because he doubted his father’s love. It was his hope that encouraged him to return.

3. This truth is necessary to our confidence in God. It is the source of gratitude and love.

4. It is to be held fast to under all circumstances. We are to believe though so much sin and misery are allowed to prevail. We are not to resort to false solutions of this difficulty, to assume that God cannot prevent sin, or that he wills it as a means to happiness. He allows it because it seems good in his sight to do so, and this is the highest and the last solution of the problem of evil.

Charles Hodge, “Who will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth, 1 Tim. 2: 4” in, Conference Papers, (New York, Charles, Scribner’s Sons, 1879), 18-19.

3 Comments

Previous Entries Next Entries

Calvin and Calvinism

Archive for December, 2007

John Calvin and Tileman Heshusius

John Calvin on Divine Mercy

James Richards (1767-1843) on Calvin on the Atonement

James Richards on the Extent of the Atonement

Charles Hodge on 1 Tim 2:4: Common Sense Exegesis

Blogroll

Meta

Recent Comments

December 2007
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Nov				Jan »
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29	30
31