Bell:

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

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

Read the rest of this entry »

Kennedy:

Universal Atonement in Calvin’s Polemical Writings

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 »

Simeon:

THE LOVE OF GOD IN GIVING HIS SON FOR MAN.

John iii. 16. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

THE doctrine of our reconciliation with God through the death of his Son, is calculated to impress our minds with a deep sense of the love of Christ in undertaking for us; but, if not cautiously stated, it may give us very erroneous conceptions respecting the Father. If, for instance, we imagine that the Father needed the mediation of his Son to render him propitious, then we must ascribe all the glory of our salvation to the Son, and consider the Father merely as acquiescing in the Son’s wishes, and showing mercy to us for his sake. But the whole plan of our salvation originated with the Father: the very gift of a Savior was the fruit of the Father’s love; and therefore, in contemplating the wonders of Redemption, we must trace them to their proper source, the love of God the Father.

To this view of things we are led by the text; in elucidating which, we shall not form any particular arrangement, but simply take the several expressions contained in it, and use them as so many mirrors to reflect light upon one central point, the love of God the Father in sending his only-begotten Son to die for us.

Consider then, first, the Giver–

[If man confer a benefit upon his fellow-creature, we are not surprised; because there is no man so elevated, but he may need the assistance of his inferiors; nor is there any man so depressed, but he may, at some period or other, have it in his power to requite a kindness. But “God” is totally independent of us; “our goodness extends not to him,”¹ “it is no profit to him that we are righteous,”² he would have been equally happy and glorious, though no creature had ever been formed; and he would remain so, if every creature in the universe were annihilated. How wonderful, then, was it, that he should condescend to look on us; yea, that he should take such an interest in our affairs, as to supply, at a most incalculable price, our pressing necessities! Even in this first view of his love we are lost with wonder.]

Read the rest of this entry »

Hooper:

Christ sent to die for the world:

1) This scripture not only teaches us the knowledge of salvation, but also comforts us against all the assaults, subtleties, and crafts of the devil–that God would of his inestimable love rather suffer his only Son to die for the world, than all the world should perish. Remaining always, as he was, very¹ God immortal, he received the thing he was not, the mortal nature and true flesh of man, in which he died, as Peter saith, I Pet. iv. Irenaeus hath these godly words: “Christ was crucified and died, the Word submitting to be crucified and die.” The divine nature of Christ was not rent, or torn, or killed, but it obeyed the will of the Father. It gave place unto the displeasure and wrath of God, that the body of Christ might die. Being always equal with his Father, he could, if he had executed his divine power, have delivered his body from the tyranny of the Jews.

These words of Irenaeus wonderfully declare unto us what Christ is, and agree with Paul, (Phil, ii.) “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon himself the form of a servant.” Seeing he was sent into the world to suffer this most cruel death and passion, he would do nothing that should be contrary to his vocation, but, with patience praying for his enemies, submitted himself unto the ignominy and contempt of the cross; suffering pains innumerable, without grudge or murmur against the holy will of his Father: his Godhead hiding itself, until the third day, when it restored the soul again unto the body, and caused it to rise with great triumph and glory, (Rom. i. Mat. xxviii. John xx. Luke xxiv. Mark xvi.) repeating the doctrine, which before his death he preached unto the world, that he was both king and lord, high bishop and priest, both of heaven and of earth. “All power is given unto me both in heaven and in earth: go, therefore, teach all nations” (Matt, xxviii.). John Hooper, “A Declaration of Christ and his Office,” in Writings of Dr. John Hooper (London: The Religious Tract Society, [1800s]), 19. [Some spelling modernized and underlining mine.]

Sins of the world:

1) Paul saith (Phil, ii.), that Christ humbled himself unto the death of the cross. (Heb. ii.) He was made partaker of a man’s mortal nature, that by death he might destroy him that had the empire and dominion of death, that is to say, the devil. John calls him the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world. (John i.) All the sacrifices of the old law were figures and types of this only sacrifice, which was appointed by God, to die and to suffer the wrath and displeasure of God for the sin of man, as though he himself were a sinner, and had merited this displeasure. The greatness of this wrath, sorrow, confusion, ignominy, and contempt, neither angel nor man can express; his pains were so intolerable, and his passion so dolorous, his Deity so obedient with the Father’s will, that it was not only a sacrifice, but also a just recompense to satisfy for all the world solely and only, as Christ taught Nicodemus, John iii. as Paul, Heb. vii. viii. ix. x. Isa. liii. and so all the prophets and patriarchs. And such a sacrifice as once for all suffices, Heb. vii.

Read the rest of this entry »