Kennedy:

Universal Atonement in Calvin’s Polemical Writings

One would expect that in his disagreements with other theologians, had Calvin held to limited atonement, he would have taken the opportunity to argue for his position when combatting the beliefs of those who held to universal atonement.⁵³ 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, Calvin did not disagree with the statement on universal atonement.⁵⁴ Indeed, he specifically mentions the decree dealing with the extent of the atonement and states that he is not in disagreement with it.⁵⁵ 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.⁵⁶

The wording in this statement is explicitly universal with regard to the atonement, and 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 Council of Trent on this point.

There is one particularly significant passage in Calvin’s polemical writings that goes far to demonstrate that, not only does Calvin not hold to particular redemption, neither does he hold to certain theological presuppositions that are at the heart of the particularist 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 particular passage in view is rather lengthy and is found near the beginning of Calvin’s refutation of Georgius’ position. The passage reads as follows:

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 venisse). But the solution lies close at hand, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but should have eternal life On 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 (Nec vero quails Sit Christi virtus, vel quid per se valeat, nunc quaeritur: sed quibus se fruendum exhibeat). 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.⁵⁷

Read the rest of this entry »