Calvin and the Atonement
Calvin and Calvinism
We’re continuing to investigate how closely the teachings of John Calvin align with the theology that is called by his name, “Calvinism”. As we’ve seen, it’s very clear that Calvin consistently taught—indeed, stressed—the doctrines of man’s depravity, predestination and election, as well as eternal preservation. This is—so far as I know—admitted by virtually everyone.
Calvin’s teaching concerning the atonement, on the other hand, is a much more controversial area. Regarding the objects of Christ’s atoning work, three distinct positions exist among Evangelicals, both historically as well as today:
Strict, or High CalvinismThis position holds that Christ died for the elect and
only for the elect.
Modified CalvinismThat Christ died for all men generally, but the Spirit’s
application of the atoning benefits of His death
are limited to the elect.
ArminianismThat Christ died for all men generally, and that the
benefits of it are limited only by man’s will.
The Free Offer
It may be obvious that there’s a connection between one’s view of the atonement and one’s view of the free offer of the Gospel—e.g. is salvation to be offered to all upon repentance and faith, or is this offer, in some way, limited to the elect?
In Hyper-Calvinist circles (e.g. Primitive Baptist, Protestant Reformed, etc.) the offer of salvation is often limited to those who, in some way or another, show signs that they are the elect. The reasoning is simple: If Christ did absolutely nothing for the non-elect, then how can anything be offered to them? Consistently, they deny that it is the duty of all men to repent and believe.
In more usual Calvinist settings (e.g. Reformed Baptists, Presbyterians, etc.) a limited atonement is coupled with a universal offer. The usual explanation for this seemingly illogical position is either:
1)We do not know who the elect are, and, therefore, must proclaim the
offer to all in order to be certain we proclaim it to the elect, or..
2)This is simply another of the antinomies (e.g. Divine Predestination/
Human Responsibility) found in the scripture. Although we cannot
explain why, we must, nevertheless, obey the clear scriptural duty.
3)The offer itself is conditional upon repentance and faith. Since only
the Spirit can actually produce those conditions, the offer is limited
“behind the scenes”, so to speak.
Both the modified Calvinist and the Arminian assert that the indiscriminate, promiscuous offer of salvation in Christ to all who believe demands a general, unlimited atonement in order for the offer that flows from it to be bona fide. Without such an atonement, they assert, sinners cannot
consistently be offered life in Christ.
Calvin and God’s Will
When the positions enumerated above approach the scripture, they often do so on the basis of certain presuppositions. This is especially true in texts of scripture that seem to speak of a general “willingness” of God to save all men (see Ezek. 33:11; 1 Tim. 2:4; and II Pet. 3:9). How, exactly, does God “will” to save all men, when He has ordained the salvation of only the elect? If He does as He pleases, and takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, then why do they perish?
These questions are no problem to the Arminian. In fact, he finds the strongest support for his system in those passages asserting a will of God that all be saved. He reasons that God wills to save all, Christ dies for all, and, should any perish, it is because of the will of man. This position raises other problems though, such as a God Whose will is frustrated by man’s will and an atonement that really secures nothing, and places men in the position of saving themselves with God’s help.
The Calvinist, holding a higher view of the God’s sovereignty and the efficacy of Christ’s work on the cross, must somehow make those same passages harmonize with his theological system. Typically, he does this in one of two ways.
1)He holds that God’s will is never frustrated. Therefore, in dealing with
passages declaring a “willingness” of God to save the “world”, “all”, or
“many”, he understands those words in terms of “the world of the elect”,
“some of all kinds”, or the “many” elect ones. Or,…
2)He holds that there is a “duality” in the will of God, usually on the basis
of Deut. 29:29. It’s held that God’s secret will—i.e. the will of His decrees
--is always done, while God’s revealed will—i.e. the will of His desires—is
often thwarted.
Calvin clearly held the latter position. His critics accused him of teaching that God has two wills. This he did not do. However, he declared that God’s one will is set before us in scripture as double (much as the scripture presents a unity of nature but a triplicity of Persons in the Godhead.) As these two “aspects” of the Divine will impinge upon redemption, he asserted that God’s revealed will was universal and conditional, while His secret will was limited and absolute. Many instances of his statements could be cited, but we’ll present just two:
Now we must see how God wishes all to be converted….But we must remark that
God puts on a twofold character: for He here wishes to be taken at His word.
As I have already said, the Prophet does not here dispute with subtlety about His
incomprehensible plans, but wishes to keep our attention close to God’s word.
Now what the contents of this word? The law, the prophets, and the gospel.
Now all are called to repentance, and the hope of salvation is promised them
when they repent: this is true, since God rejects no returning sinner: he pardons
all without exception; meanwhile, this will of God which He sets forth in His
word does not prevent Him from decreeing before the world was created what He
would do with every individual….
Comment on Ezekiel 18:23
I contend that, as the prophet [Ezekiel] is exhorting to penitence, it is no
wonder that he pronounces God willing that all be saved. But the mutual
relation between threats and promises shows such forms of speech to be
conditional….So again….the promises which invite all men to salvation…do not
simply and positively declare what God has decreed in His secret counsel but
what He is prepared to do for all who are brought to faith and repentance…Now
this is not contradictory of His secret counsel, by which he determined to
convert none but His elect. He cannot rightly on this account be thought
variable, because as lawgiver, He illuminates all with the external doctrine of
life. But in the other sense, He brings to life Whom He will, as Father
regenerating by the Spirit only His sons.
Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, pp. 105-6
Calvin and the Atonement
With Calvin’s view of this “duality” in God’s will, it’s no surprise then that he doesn’t feel the need to redefine universal terms when speaking of the extent of the atonement of Christ. In fact, surprisingly, where Calvinists often find warrant to restrict the scope of a verse, Calvin extends the scope much as an Arminian might! Consider the following:
The word many does not mean a part of the world only, but the whole human
race: he contrasts many with one, as if to say that He would not be Redeemer
of one man, but would meet death to deliver many from their accursed guilt..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.
Comment on Mark 14:24
Calvin often states the scope of the work of Christ in the most universal of terms:
God commends to us the salvation of all men without exception, even as Christ
Suffered for the sins of the whole world.
Comment on Galatians 5:12
Did He believe in a “Universal Atonement”? Certainly not in the Arminian sense, as the following quote makes clear:
But the solution of the difficulty lies in seeing how the doctrine of the Gospel offers
salvation to all. That it is salvific for all I do not deny. But the question is
whether the Lord in His counsel here destines salvation equally for all. All are
equally called to penitence and faith; the same mediator is set forth for all to
reconcile them to the Father—so much is evident. But it is equally evident
that nothing can be perceived except by faith…
Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, pp. 102-3
Note the word “equally” in the foregoing quote. This is the key to understanding Calvin’s position: Christ died for all men, but not “equally” for all—e.g. not in the same sense for all. On the one hand, He dies for all in that salvation is offered to all, rendering all inexcusable for its rejection, but, on the other hand, He dies to actually secure the salvation of the elect only. This view has been stated historically by this formula: Sufficient for all—Efficient for the elect. Note the following quote:
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 sufficiently for the 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 the passage. For John’s
purpose was only to make this blessing common to the whole church.
Comment on I John 2:2
Note that though Calvin denies the applicability of this formula to the text at hand, he declares it a valid and truthful statement.
There is one oft-quoted statement of Calvin’s that seems, at first glance, to support the view of the “High Calvinist” position:
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?
Tracts, Vol. 2, p. 527
However, this was a statement made by Calvin in answer to the Lutheran Heshusius’s position on consubstantiation. Once that’s realized, it’s also apparent that Calvin may simply be saying that ingesting the body and blood of Christ in uncrucified elements cannot possibly take away sin.
Conclusion
It’s been suggested by those holding the traditional Calvinist position on the atonement that Calvin never really dealt with the doctrine of Limited Atonement. They go on to assert that, had he done so, he would have certainly formulated his view in accordance with the position of “Limited Atonement”. His actual statements cast serious doubts upon that supposition.
While Calvin was clearly not Arminian in his thinking, it’s questionable as to how his statements would jive with the “High Calvinist” view as well. Does this, then, mean that he would fit into the “Modified Calvinist” position? Not really. The “Modified Calvinist” usually holds that Christ died for all men alike, but that the limitation only arises in the Spirit’s application of Christ’s work. This view doesn’t do justice to Calvin’s view. As we’ve seen, he believed Christ died for “all men”, but not for all men “equally”. To the non-elect, Calvin proclaimed a real atonement and a genuine salvation in Christ. Therefore, there was no limitation involved with the free offer of grace to all. Should any man avail himself of that offer—elect or non-elect—he would be saved. However, clearly Calvin also held that the elect and the elect alone were destined to actually receive the benefits of Christ’s death.
All of us change or modify our views over time. It might be argued that Calvin might have asserted these things at some point in his theological development, but learned better as he matured. To defuse this suggestion, consider the following excerpt:
I John Calvin, servant of the Word of God in the church of Geneva, weakened
By many illnesses…I embrace the grace which He [God] has offered me in our
Lord Jesus Christ, and accept the merits of His suffering and dying that through
Him all my sins are buried; and I humbly beg Him to wash me and cleanse me
With the blood of our great Redeemer, as it was shed for all poor sinners so that
I, when I appear before His face, may bear His likeness.
From Calvin’s Last Will (April 25, 1564), emphasis mine