Calvin

[agedman]

Can anyone quote Calvin stating he taught limited atonement in the manor the typical puritan five pointer would contend?

In all my reading (which admittedly was not exhaustive and much left in the dust of the Forgottenness) I do not recall a single confirming statement, but rather found him embracing the typical view that the blood was certainly for all, but redemption was given to the few. In other words, he seemed to take as factual, Johns view of the atonement as complete and effectively efficient for all, yet that did not oblige that all were redeemed; that redemption was completely by God's grace based upon His purposed sovereignty.

Therefore, I am looking to you who are scholars to drag out some quote directly attributed to Calvin that actually presents his clearest statement on limited atonement.

Could it be that Calvin was actually a four point Calvinist?

 

[JonC]

The scope of the Atonement was a post-Calvin issue, so we really can't say either way.

 

[MennoSota]

This article seems to answer your question.
John Calvin’s view of Limited Atonement – by Dr. Roger Nicole | A Puritan's Mind

 

[agedman]

This article seems to answer your question.
John Calvin’s view of Limited Atonement – by Dr. Roger Nicole | A Puritan's Mind

I read this before I posted the thread.

However, in the latter part where the author is enumerating the arguments, rather than using the statements of Calvin, the replays echos of the typical puritan thinking, which I question that Calvin would actually embrace.

Admittedly, the author does attempt to show Calvin quotes in light of the historical setting - often neglected by others who would try to discredit someone's work and thinking.

But the author also keeps fudging in statements such as

"1. The strong structure of Calvin’s theology in terms of the divine purpose does appear to imply this specific reference. It seems difficult to imagine that Calvin would posit as the purpose of Christ an indefinite, hypothetical redemption, when at so many other points it is plainly apparent that the specific elective purpose of God is the controlling feature of his outlook."​

Again, it seems some were / are more willing to push Calvin's complete and right emphasis upon redemption by Christ alone into him accepting a limited atonement view that was possibly not part of his thinking.

It mingles redemption and the shedding of blood as a singular. It would seem Calvin did not, but held the blood was in fact shed for all, but redemption was solely by God's purposed sovereignty.

That no person standing before the judgement seat of God can claim, that the blood was not shed for them, therefore they are excusable.

Just as Calvin's appeal, as well as the gospels, was that all should repent and believe, so could he firmly stand on the fact that the blood was shed as John states, for the whole world.


What i desire is something definite from Calvin, not an article that will admit, yet be timid in drawing the conclusion.

If in fact, the thinking of the blood being limited is truly that of Calvin, then there must be something in writing by him. If not, the Dort folks got that theological thinking wrong, and one must admit Redemption is certainly limited by God, but the blood shed by Christ was not.

 

[MennoSota]

What I get from the author is what I have heard a few times here as well. That being the idea that Christ's atonement is potentially for all, but is particularly for the elect. This means that the atonement is effectually limited to those who God chooses.

 

[Reformed]

What I get from the author is what I have heard a few times here as well. That being the idea that Christ's atonement is potentially for all, but is particularly for the elect. This means that the atonement is effectually limited to those who God chooses.

The author of that article, C. Matthew McMahon, does not believe that. He believes Christ atoned for the sins of the elect only. He believes there is no potential beyond the elect.

 

[MennoSota]

The author of that article, C. Matthew McMahon, does not believe that. He believes Christ atoned for the sins of the elect only. He believes there is no potential beyond the elect.

Sorry for the confusion.
I meant he seemed to paint Calvin as having the view I presented.
I admittedly skimmed the article so if he makes a case for Calvin different than what I shared, feel free to quote the article regarding Calvin's view on atonement.

 

[Reformed]

Sorry for the confusion.
I meant he seemed to paint Calvin as having the view I presented.
I admittedly skimmed the article so if he makes a case for Calvin different than what I shared, feel free to quote the article regarding Calvin's view on atonement.

I was referring to the author's view of whether the atonement has any potential beyond the elect. I agree with McMahon that it does not. As far as Calvin goes, his view of the atonement is somewhat under developed. Definite atonement is more defined other reformers and the Puritans.

 

[agedman]

I was referring to the author's view of whether the atonement has any potential beyond the elect. I agree with McMahon that it does not. As far as Calvin goes, his view of the atonement is somewhat under developed. Definite atonement is more defined other reformers and the Puritans.

This could be true, however as precise as Calvin taught, and giving the foundational approach he took with his writing, it seems to me to be somewhat presumptuous to neglect, as "under developed," this specific area. But then he was quite a busy man.

Perhaps it is time that the reformed thinking move away from a limit to atonement and rename it specific redemption. For that would bring far more Scriptures (specifically of John) into harmony and greatly supportable.

Perhaps Calvin also saw this danger of running to some sort of blood limit and therefore was far more centered upon the limit of redemption being that of God's sovereignty and not the lack of sufficient blood?

 

[agedman]

I was referring to the author's view of whether the atonement has any potential beyond the elect. I agree with McMahon that it does not. As far as Calvin goes, his view of the atonement is somewhat under developed. Definite atonement is more defined other reformers and the Puritans.

I would like to draw out your thoughts on the statement,"...has any potential beyond the elect."

This is an area of concern, because there are those who would suppose that the blood shed has some continuum of potential power. Such thinking is Papist in my opinion, as they present the consumption of blood in the cup offered.

The blood was once offered, not in continuum, but at a single point.

Therefore, there is no "potential" that is associated with the blood. There is no further sacrifice nor potential of offering that can be offered. No pentance by humankind, and no further atonement is made for humankind. The power of the blood is undeminished, inspite and dispite humankind. Once offered, for all. It remains humankind to repent. The blood is, not may be. The effect of the blood "is" not might be...

Now, given what I have posted, what potential in the blood do you propose?

 

[Rippon]

As far as Calvin goes, his view of the atonement is somewhat under developed.

It just wasn't an issue in his lifetime. It didn't come up at the local watering hole.

Definite atonement is more defined other reformers and the Puritans.

As far as the Reformers go --aside from Beza and Zanchius -- who else was defining definite atonement?

It was certainly a subject of controversy in the 9th century. Just about everyone knows of the views of Gottschalk of Orbais (d.around 868). But there were others in his era who agreed with him:
Remigius of Lyons (d.875)
Florus of Lyons (d. 860?)
Lupus Servatus (d. 862)
Ratramnus (d.870)

 

[Reformed]

I would like to draw out your thoughts on the statement,"...has any potential beyond the elect."

This is an area of concern, because there are those who would suppose that the blood shed has some continuum of potential power. Such thinking is Papist in my opinion, as they present the consumption of blood in the cup offered.

The blood was once offered, not in continuum, but at a single point.

Therefore, there is no "potential" that is associated with the blood. There is no further sacrifice nor potential of offering that can be offered. No pentance by humankind, and no further atonement is made for humankind. The power of the blood is undeminished, inspite and dispite humankind. Once offered, for all. It remains humankind to repent. The blood is, not may be. The effect of the blood "is" not might be...

Now, given what I have posted, what potential in the blood do you propose?

Christ atoned for the sins of the elect. That is it. The atonement is definite for the elect. It has no other salvific benefit for anyone else. I put in quotes the word "potential" because I was responding to Jon C's post. It is not a word I would use to describe the atonement.

 

[Reformed]

It just wasn't an issue in his lifetime. It didn't come up at the local watering hole.

As far as the Reformers go --aside from Beza and Zanchius -- who else was defining definite atonement?

The Dutch Reformed took great care to drill down on limited (definite) atonement in the early 17th century at Dordt. By the time the Puritans came on the scene limited atonement was well established. Gill, Whitfield, Rutherford, Owen et. al expounded on it. Opponents of Calvin like to criticize him for not writing extensively on the subject, but what they fail to realize is that Reformation theology was a work in progress. The Protestant Reformation was not an end in itself. Semper Reformanda.

 

[agedman]

Christ atoned for the sins of the elect. That is it. The atonement is definite for the elect. It has no other salvific benefit for anyone else. I put in quotes the word "potential" because I was responding to Jon C's post. It is not a word I would use to describe the atonement.

I get that you cling to reform theology.

However, I am one of a growing number that consider the limit of salvation is not from a lack of blood supply, but the Father's prescribed soverienty.

I hold that The Blood (red stuff) was/is sufficient for all creation, however the call goes only to those chosen by the sovereign and given to the Son.

The blood demand was satisfied in that single eternal sacrifice, however where the reformers (in my opinion) where mistaken is that in some way they selfishly desired the blood was for only the selected, yet the Scriptures do not teach such a limit exists in the blood ( about which John is specific for he does not indicate the act or the service or the process, but the red stuff, itself. The crucifixion was the means of shedding the blood, but without the blood shedding there is no remission of sin (Paul)).

Christ completely poured out the blood for ALL sin, just as the OT sacrifice obliged. That obstinate rebellion and unrepentance continued then and even in believers of this day did not diminish nor limit the flow.

The example from the OT.
The blood was not limited in the OT to only the repentant. Do not assume that Atonement meant automatic forgiveness, just as in the OT the yearly sacrifice did not guarantee judgment would not come upon the unrepentant. The actual blood itself was applied without regard to worthiness for none are ever worthy, however judgement still rested upon the rebellious.

Often atonement and forgiveness are used synonymously, and they often certainly may. But the significant factor is repentance. The OT bears this truth as does Peter's cry, "...repent ...".

Even Paul understood when pointing out the difference of the worldly sorrow/repentance and those who had Godly sorrow/repentance. When confronting evil in the assembly he wrote:

9 I now rejoice, not that you were made sorrowful, but that you were made sorrowful to the point of repentance; for you were made sorrowful according to the will of God, so that you might not suffer loss in anything through us. 10 For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death. 11 For behold what earnestness this very thing, this godly sorrow, has produced in you: what vindication of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what longing, what zeal, what avenging of wrong! In everything you demonstrated yourselves to be innocent in the matter.

Salvation is limited, not by the atonement blood, but by the sovereignty of the Father who knows the heart.

 

[MennoSota]

Salvation is limited, not by the atonement blood, but by the sovereignty of the Father who knows the heart.

I would rephrase your comment:
Atonement is limited by the Sovereign Father to those whom he chooses because he knows that all hearts are as filthy rags.

 

[Rippon]

As far as the Reformers go --aside from Beza and Zanchius -- who else was defining definite atonement?

What other Reformers delved into it aside from the above two?

I personally define the end of the Reformed era with Beza's death in 1605. So I am not speaking of the time period after that date.

 

[agedman]

I would rephrase your comment:
Atonement is limited by the Sovereign Father to those whom he chooses because he knows that all hearts are as filthy rags.

If the reformers took the position that the blood of Christ resolved the issue of debt for all, and reconciliation was then based upon God working purposely in the heart of whom He chose to bring repentance and salvation, and the limit was a matter of God's choice as Sovereignty desires, I would agree.


The atonement (covering) was never practiced or used throughout OT Scripture to signify a limit or applicable to only a select group among the larger assembled. And there are no passages of the NT blood sacrifice being indicated as such a limit, either.

First, in the OT, the yearly atonement was for everyone in the land, irregardless of station or heart condition - the sacrifice was for all including the strangers, mixed multitude, unbelievers, ...

Second, as mentioned before, John specifies not the act of atonement but the blood itself and results of that blood being not merely for the select.

Paul uses a different word in Romans and Hebrews which involves the furniture John is not about the furniture being covered, but what covered the furniture.

One cannot assume that John's statement is diminished to the select when he most certainly included both those redeemed and everyone else, too.

Because John is so very specific and consistent, the blood cannot be limited, there was not insufficient blood supply, but the sovereign purpose of choice that is the limiting factor.

Peter said, "39“For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”

Peter did not say the blood was only for you, but the promise, and the call of God.

 

[MennoSota]

If the reformers took the position that the blood of Christ resolved the issue of debt for all, and reconciliation was then based upon God working purposely in the heart of whom He chose to bring repentance and salvation, and the limit was a matter of God's choice as Sovereignty desires, I would agree.


The atonement (covering) was never practiced or used throughout OT Scripture to signify a limit or applicable to only a select group among the larger assembled. And there are no passages of the NT blood sacrifice being indicated as such a limit, either.

First, in the OT, the yearly atonement was for everyone in the land, irregardless of station or heart condition - the sacrifice was for all including the strangers, mixed multitude, unbelievers, ...

Second, as mentioned before, John specifies not the act of atonement but the blood itself and results of that blood being not merely for the select.

Paul uses a different word in Romans and Hebrews which involves the furniture John is not about the furniture being covered, but what covered the furniture.

One cannot assume that John's statement is diminished to the select when he most certainly included both those redeemed and everyone else, too.

Because John is so very specific and consistent, the blood cannot be limited, there was not insufficient blood supply, but the sovereign purpose of choice that is the limiting factor.

Peter said, "39“For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”

Peter did not say the blood was only for you, but the promise, and the call of God.

The ceremonies of corporate Israel did not cover the individual Israelite's sin. If this were so then God would have had no need to explain His judgment of individuals in his message to Ezekiel.
The corporate theory you are presenting is not attributable to God's elective choice of salvation.

 

[agedman]

The ceremonies of corporate Israel did not cover the individual Israelite's sin. If this were so then God would have had no need to explain His judgment of individuals in his message to Ezekiel.
The corporate theory you are presenting is not attributable to God's elective choice of salvation.

I disagree.

The once a year, behind the curtain blood sprinkling, was most certainly both corporate and individual. One cannot separate the corporate from the associated individuals, though the individuals can be separated from the corporate by both intent and desire. Such was the case of why God, although the once a year atonement was made, would bring judgment upon the corporate yet preserve the individuals (consider Elijah and the 7000). God always had/has His "remnant".

Because of the corporate atonement and because the NT enjoins that specificlly to the sacrifice of Christ, then it follows the Blood was for all - corporate.

Paul and John used this once a year appointment when using what is translated "propitiation." But one focuses on the furniture the other on the blood.

The daily offerings and sacrifice are also reflected in the NT as that which believers must attend (daily) in supplications to the Father.

To dispel the myth some reader of the thread may raise - that the blood shed for all would result in no condemnation for any - those that would contend that degree have little understanding of John 3. It is not the lack of blood shed that condemns. This passage again displays the yearly single blood shed satisfied corporately, and also the need of specific salvation of the individual by the Father.

Unfortunately, I am not going to be available to continue in this thread, but I most certainly would enjoy bantering on this topic with you.

 

[JonC]

What is sad is that John Calvin is so often reduced to his view of sovereignty in salvation. It is not that the topic lacks weight but that it did not occupy as much of John Calvin's theology as one would come to believe looking at the focus of many brethern. For example, I have not seen even one thread dedicated to Calvin's thoughts and teachings on prayer, although prayer as a topic represents more of Calvin's writings than does divine election.