23
Sep

Kevin D. Kennedy on Calvin and 1 John 2:2

   Posted by: CalvinandCalvinism   in Calvin and 1 John 2:2

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

In this passage Calvin is countering Georgius’s argument that, since Christ is said to have died for the whole world, then 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. It is clear from Calvin’s portrayal of Georgius 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.58 Georgius’ position is based upon two assumptions. First, he understood that Christ had died for the sins of the whole world. Second, he believed that all those for whom Christ died will actually reap the benefits of that death. Georgius’ argument, in essence, is that there can be no reprobate since salvation will actually be "applied" to all those for whom Christ died. Since Christ is said to have died for the whole world then Christ must have died for the so-called reprobate as well, otherwise you must place the reprobate somewhere outside of the world.

Calvin does not counter Georgius’ argument by denying Georgius’ first premise, that Christ died for the sins of the whole world. Rather, Calvin counters the argument by attacking Georgius’ second premise–that all those for whom Christ died will ultimately be saved. Indeed, Calvin explicitly states in this passage that it is "incontestable that Christ came for the expiation of the sins of the whole world."59 Were Calvin a particularist, he certainly would have corrected Georgius’ belief that Christ died for the sins of the whole world. Instead, he agrees with this part of Georgius’ argument but rejects the assumption that all those for whom Christ died will be saved. Calvin’s argument is that not all those for whom Christ died will ultimately be saved because not all believe and are made partakers of Christ.60

This is a significant passage for it strikes at the very heart of one of the central assumptions of particularism. Most particularists hold to the ex opere opera to theory that holds that all those for whom Christ died must necessarily be saved. This is the central point on which Georgius is arguing and the very point that Calvin is rejecting. It is interesting that both Paul Helm and Roger Nicole claim that Calvin affirmed this theory. Helm states that "since for Calvin, all for whom Christ died are saved, and not all men are saved, it follows that Christ did not die for all men."61 Roger Nicole also tries to argue that Calvin held to the ex opere operato theory.62 He depicts Calvin as believing that "[w]hat Christ has accomplished on the cross is not so much the savability of all humans, as actually to accomplish the salvation of those whom he does redeem." His argument for this point is an appeal to the title of the seventeenth chapter of Book II of the Institutes. This chapter, entitled "Christ rightly and properly said to have merited God’s grace and salvation for us," is understood by Nicole as indicating an affirmation by Calvin of the ex opera operato theory. Nicole has either misread the intention of the chapter or is reading far too much into its title. Calvin’s stated intention.in this chapter is to oppose those who would say that the notion of Christ meriting our salvation is contrary to the notion of the free gift of grace. In this chapter Calvin sets out to show that Christ was not a mere instrument of God’s grace but was also its author, as the Apostle Peter teaches (Acts 3:15). Christ, as the author of our salvation, can rightfully be said to have merited our salvation because his meriting was preceded by the express ordination of God as its first cause, "because in his mere good pleasure He appointed a mediator to purchase salvation for us."63 Calvin continues in this chapter to prove how it was that Christ actually merited, or purchased, salvation through the shedding of his blood on the cross. Nowhere in this chapter does he argue or imply that he believes that all those tor whom Christ died will actually be saved, as Nicole indicates. The context of this chapter indicates that his concern was to argue that Christ’s meriting salvation for us is not contradictory to the notion of grace.

I have been unable to find any instance in Calvin’s writings where he affirms the idea that all those for whom Christ died will ultimately be saved. On the contrary, the above passage against Georgius constitutes an explicit rejection of this idea. Furthermore, Calvin never appeals to this idea with reference to the actual application of the atonement. Instead, Calvin makes frequent use of the idea that even though Christ died for the sins of the whole world, each person must claim possession of Christ for himself64 Until such a time as proof is brought forth that Calvin did indeed affirm this theory, the present evidence should cause us to conclude that Calvin did not believe that all those for whom Christ died must ultimately be saved. Kevin D. Kennedy, Union with Christ and the Extent of the Atonement in Calvin (New York: Peter Lang: 2002), 38-41. [Footnote values and content original and Underlining mine.]

*     *     *     *     *     *

None of the four passages just mentioned have any bearing on the question of Calvin’s view on the extent of the atonement. They have only to do with the extent of the actual salvation of individuals. There is yet one more passage in which Calvin qualifies the word "all" that must be addressed. The passage in question is from his commentary on I John 2:2 ("and he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for our sins only but also for the sins of the whole world"). Calvin’s comments on this passage are frequently cited as being explicit evidence that he held to particular redemption.79 The passage in question reads as follows:

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

The key to understanding the above passage is to recognize the interpretation of this ,verse against which Calvin is arguing. He speaks of certain "fanatics" who take 1 John 2:2 to mean that the entire world, even Satan, will be saved because the sins of the whole world have been expiated. Curt D. Daniel, I believe, has correctly identified these "fanatics" as being those, like Georgius, who had used this verse to argue that the whole world would be saved.81 I have already discussed Calvin’s refutation of Georgius’ argument on this verse in Calvin’s Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God. In his argument with Georgius Calvin does not dispute the point that Christ died for the whole world. However, he does dispute Georgius’ conclusion that since Christ died for the whole world, then this means that the whole world will be saved. Thus, as he did in his refutation of Georgius, Calvin is guarding against this same interpretation here.

The second thing we should notice from this passage, is that Calvin understands this verse to be dealing with the application of salvation. He is arguing against those who wish to extend salvation to all the reprobate, even to Satan himself. Those against whom he is arguing apparently say that since Christ died for the sins of the whole world, and since the reprobate, and presumably, even Satan, should be included in this number, then all those for whom Christ died will be saved, including Satan. Calvin says that the Apostle John’s purpose in this passage was to teach us that this blessing, salvation, should be common to the whole church, those who actually believe the gospel. The blessing of salvation does not come automatically to all those for whom.Christ died. The blessing of salvation comes only to those,who believe. The hermeneutical danger, for Calvin, is not that some might interpret this verse as teaching that Christ died for the sins of the whole world. Rather, the hermeneutical danger is that some have interpreted this verse to indicate that all the world will actually be saved.

Thus, the first sentence in this passage should be understood along the following lines lines. When Calvin says that the expiation of Christ extends to all who by faith believe the gospel, he should be understood to mean that the expiation actually comes to be applied to all those who believe the gospel. Calvin uses the word "extend" in a similar way in his commentaries on Romans 5:18 and John 12:52. Curt Daniel relates Calvin’s comments on 1 John 2:2 above to his comments on Rom 5:18 and John 12:52 where Calvin denies that the atonement "extends to all" because "not all receive Him."82 In the passage above as well as the passages from his commentaries on Romans and John, Calvin is dealing with the question of the actual application of salvation. He is not dealing with the question of the extent of the atonement. That Calvin understood 1 John 2:2 to be dealing with the application of salvation is the best interpretation of this passage given those against whom he was arguing–those who claimed that the mere fact of Christ dying for someone was sufficient to save them.83

Furthermore, to those who appeal to this "explicit" reference as evidence that Calvin did not hold to universal atonement,84 it would be easy to point to examples of Calvin’s explicit affirmations of universal atonement. This same passage is at issue in his refutation of Georgius in Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God. In that instance, not only does Calvin not dispute Georgius’ claim that Christ died for the whole world but he explicitly affirms it when he says that "it is incontestable that Christ came for the expiation of the sins of the whole world."85 Kevin D. Kennedy, Union with Christ and the Extent of the Atonement in Calvin (New York: Peter Lang: 2002), 49-51. [Footnote values and content original and Underlining mine]

_______________________

53Paul Helm argues that one reason for Calvin’s near silence on the question of the extent of the atonement may be explained by the fact that this issue was not widely debated until the rise of Arminianism before the Synod of Dort (Calvin and the Calvinists, 18). Helm is arguing from the assumption that limited atonement was the predominant view long before Dort and thus the reason why Calvin had no occasion to enter into debate on the issue. While this might explain why Calvin never argued this point with other reformed theologians, it does not explain why Calvin does not raise the issue in his polemics with the Roman Catholic Church. Furthermore, Robert Letham in his Aberdeen University Ph.D. dissertation has argued that universal atonement was the original reformation view and that particularism began to predominate about the time of Beza ("Saving Faith and Assurance in Reformed Theology: Zwingli to the Synod of Dort," 2 vols. [Ph.D. diss., Aberdeen University, 1979]). While I differ with Letham’s contention that particularism was introduced by Calvin (and Bullinger), it is clear that the early reformed theologians were not universally particularist as Helm seems to assume.

54Kendall mentions this in his brief argument at the outset of Calvin and English Calvinism, 12. See also Daniel, “Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill,” 790.

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

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

57Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, trans. J. K. S. Reid (London: James Clark & Co., 1961), 149, C.O. 8.336. It is unclear whether it is Calvin or Georgius who mentions Lombard’s formula that the death of Christ was sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect (see Daniel, "HyperCalvinism and John Gill: 807). If it is Calvin, then he dearly does not feel that this formula is of any help in this circumstance. Helm mentions this passage as proof that Calvin rejected the formula, thus making him a particularist (Calvin and the Calvinists, 16). Kendall indicates that Calvin rejected the formula, yet Kendall believes that Calvin’s rejection of this formula makes him a universalist with regard to the extent of the atonement (Calvin and English Calvinism, 12). Yet, in his commentary on 1 John 2:2, Calvin admits the truth of the formula but indicates that it has no bearing in that context. If this is an instance of Calvin alluding to this formula, there is no reason to feel that he rejects it, considering his affirmation of the formula in his commentary on 1 John 2:2. If Calvin’s quotation of Georgius ends after the recitation of this formula, thus making the allusion to the formula Georgius’ rather than Calvin’s, it should still be remembered that Calvin elsewhere affirmed the truth of the formula. It is possible that Calvin was inconsistent in this instance. It is also possible that the "absurdity" to which Calvin referred was Georgius’ conclusion that all would be joined to Christ, which was certainly Calvin’s primary critique of Georgius. Calvin’s primary complaint was that Georgius failed to see the necessity of faith and participation in Christ for the atonement to be applied to the believer.

58This can be seen in Calvin’s comments on pp. 151-52, in the same treatise; e.g. "But this monk calls attention to the words; for Paul comprehends all the race of men, when he says that the sin of one man came upon all, and hence no one may be excluded from participation in life" (Tracts and Treatises, 152, C.O. 8.337).

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

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

61Helm, Calvin and the Calvinists, 17.

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

63Institutes, 2.17.1.

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

79Paul Helm mentions Calvin’s comments on this verse but limits his comments to a refutation of R. T. Kendall’s claim that Calvin did not subscribe to the "sufficient/efficient" scheme of the school men (Calvin and the Calvinists, 39). William Cunningham points to Calvin’s comments on this passage as explicit evidence that he did not hold to universal atonement, and presumably, can be understood to have held to particular atonement (The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, 400). In his article "John Calvin’s View of the Extent of the Atonement," Roger Nicole does not mention Calvin’s comments on this passage. It should be noted that in the paragraphs that follow I will be making use of Curt D. Daniel’s treatment of this passage from Calvin found in Daniel’s dissertation, "Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill." Daniel’s explanation of this passage from Calvin is the most cogent account that I have seen. His identification of the "fanatics" against whom Calvin is arguing to be Georgius and others like him, who use 1 John 2:2 to argue for a universal application of salvation, is the most plausible explanation as to the cause of Calvin’s concern over this passage.

80Calvin, Comm., I John 2:2, N.T.C 7.286. (Amplification is causa hoc addidit, ut certo persuasi sint fideles, expiationem a Christo partum ad omnes extendi, qui Evangelium fide amplexi fuerint. Sed hic movetur quaestio, quomodo mundi totius peccata expientur. Omitto phreneticorum deliria, qui hoc praetextu reprobos omnes, adeoque Satanam ipsum in salutem admittunt. Tale portentum refutatione indignum est. Qui hanc absurditatem valebant effugere, dixerunt, sufficienter pro toto mundo passum esse Christum, sed pro electis is tantum efficaciter. Vulgo haec solutio in scholis obtinuit. Ego quanquam verum esse illud dictum fateor, nego tamen praesenti loco quadrare. Neque enim aliud fuit cons ilium Joannis, quam toti ecclesiae commune facere hoc bonum. Ergo sub omnibus reprobus non comprehendit: sed eos designat, qui simul credituri erant, et qui per varias mundi plagas dispersi erant. Tunc enim vere, ut par est, illustratur Christi gratia, quum unica mundi salus praedicatur.)

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

82Ibid., 803.

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

84One notable example is William Cunningham (The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, 400). Cunningham begins his discussion of the question of whether or not Calvin held to universal atonement by stating that Calvin did not explicitly deal with the question. He then appealed to this" explicit" reference as indicating that Calvin did not hold to universal atonement, and thus presumably, Calvin must have been a particularist. Nowhere does Cunningham deal with the examples of Calvin’s explicit affirmations of universal atonement.

85Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, 149, C.O. 8.336.

This entry was posted on Thursday, September 23rd, 2010 at 8:51 am and is filed under Calvin and 1 John 2:2. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Leave a reply

Name (*)
Mail (will not be published) (*)
URI
Comment