Posting 16 JOHN CALVIN'S ‘UNLIMITED’ ATONEMENT

 "Fundamental to the doctrine of faith in John Calvin (1509–1564) is his belief that Christ died indiscriminately for all men.”

              The above claim is the first sentence of R.T. Kendall's book Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649 (republished, Paternoster Press, 1997).  This claim was made much earlier by Moise Amyraut (1596–1644), who thought he was following Calvin when he insisted that Christ died for all men.

              Kendall buttresses his first sentence with numerous citations from Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, Sermons on Isaiah and from Calvin's commentaries. Kendall's “Appendix 1” is comprised of sixteen pages of nothing but quotations taken from Calvin's commentaries (pp. 214 – 230).  Here is a small selection of these quotes:

Isa. 53:12 — “’He bore the sin of many.’  I approve of the ordinary reading, that He alone bore the punishment of man, because on Him was laid the guilt of the whole world.  It is evident from other passages, and especially from the fifth Posting of the Epistle to the Romans, that ‘many' sometimes denotes ‘all'.”

Mark 14:24 — “The word many does not mean a part of the world only, but the whole human race.”

John 1:28 — “And when he says the sin of the world he extends this kindness indiscriminately to the whole human race.”

John 3:16 — “He nevertheless shows He is favorable to the whole world when He calls all without exception to the faith of Christ, which is indeed an entry into life.”

John 3:17 — “The word world comes again so that no one at all may think he is excluded."

John 4:17 — “He declared that the salvation He had brought was common to the whole world, so that they should understand more easily that it belonged to them also.”

John 12:47 — “For He delayed pronouncing judgment on them, because He had come rather for the salvation of all."

John 14:30 — “For the word world here embraced the whole human race.”

John 16:8 — “I think that under the word world are included both those who were to be truly converted to Christ and hypocrites and reprobates.”

John 17:9 — “He openly declares that he does not pray for the world, for He is solicitous only for His own flock which He received from the Father's hand.”

Rom. 5:18 — “Although Christ suffered for the sins of the world and is offered by the goodness of God without distinction to all men, yet not all receive him.”

Gal. 5:12 — “For God commends to us the salvation of all men without exception, even as Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world.”

Col. 1:14 — “He says that this redemption was procured by the blood of Christ, for by the sacrifice of His death all the sins of the world have been expiated.”

Heb. 2:9 — “He suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for every man.”

Heb. 8:4 — “He made atonement for the sins of the world as a Priest.”

Heb. 9:28 — “He says many meaning all, as in Rom. 5:15.”

1 John 2:2 — “The reason why God does not impute our sins to us is because He looks upon Christ the intercessor.”

ABOUT R.T. KENDALL

              Kendall is the author of more than forty books.  His purpose in this particular book is not to demonstrate that Calvin's view of the atonement is scriptural.  His only purpose is to set forth what Calvin believed.  His book is a work of historical theology, not dogmatic theology.

              Dr. R.T. Kendall succeeded Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones as Senior Minister of Westminster Chapel, serving for twenty-five years from 1977 to 2002.  He retired to Largo Sound in Key Largo, Florida. He describes his relationship to Lloyd-Jones: “We were like father and son for the four years I was also his Minister—from 1977 to 1981.”

              In a personal email to me (dated Sept. 7, 2004) Kendall wrote: “I know that Martyn Lloyd-Jones was absolutely convinced I got it right as to Calvin's views.  He showed me passage after passage from Calvin that I had not even used” (quote used with permission). This does not mean that Lloyd-Jones accepted Calvin's doctrine of faith. It means that Lloyd-Jones was fully convinced that John Calvin did not believe in “limited atonement.”

“UNLIMITED” ATONEMENT 

              That Calvin believed “that Christ died indiscriminately for all men” is an astonishing claim for those who, like myself, have always read the works of Calvin from the perspective of the five points of the Canons of Dort.  We must keep in mind, however, that the five Arminian propositions and Dort's response to them (Total Depravity ─ Unconditional Election ─ Limited Atonement ─ Irresistible Grace ─ Preservation of the Saints) were formulated some forty years after Calvin's death.

              In Kendall's words, Calvin believed: “That Jesus died for everybody without exception but that the blood he shed was applied to God's elect only and made effectual as a consequence of Christ's intercession at the Father's right hand” (Kendall, p. vii).

              Calvin repeatedly and explicitly affirms four of the traditional five points of doctrine explicated in the Canons of Dort.  Such repeated, explicit affirmations regarding the doctrine of “limited atonement” are not found in Calvin's writings. 

THE SO-CALLED "UNIVERSALISTIC" TEXTS

              Calvin seldom comments on those texts that speak plainly of Christ having died to save “the world” or “all men” (see Posting 1). Calvin leaves such verses alone because he accepts these verses to mean what they clearly say. “He [Calvin] generally leaves verses like these alone, he never explains, for example, that ‘all' does not mean all or ‘world' does not mean world, as Calvinists after him tended to do” (Kendall, p. 13). 

              The internal quotes in the following paragraph are from the works of Calvin and are accurately referenced on page 14 of Kendall's book:

   “Had Christ died only for those whom God has chosen by His secret decree, then, it would obviously cease to be a pledge to all.  But ‘our Lord Jesus suffered for all and there is neither great nor small who is not inexcusable today, for we can obtain salvation in Him.'  This is why ‘no worse injury can be done to Him than not to believe the Gospel.'  John 3:16 says God so loved ‘the world' which is ‘a general term, both to invite indiscriminately all to share in life and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers.'”

              Therefore faith to Calvin may be described as knowing and personally believing “what God has already done in Christ” (Kendall, p. 20).  Because Christ died for all, without exception, this grace can be offered to all and believers can look to Christ by faith and thus be assured that what Christ has done for “all” necessarily includes them.

NEITHER A UNIVERSALIST NOR AN ARMINIAN

              Although Calvin believed that Christ died for “all,” it is obvious that he was not a Universalist.  Kendall quotes Calvin, “God does not indiscriminately adopt all into the hope of salvation but gives to some what He denies to others.”  Again quoting Calvin, “eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others” (Kendall, p. 15).

              Christ died for every person without any exception, according to Calvin; nevertheless, until faith is given, “. . . all that He has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value for us” (Calvin’s Institutes III.i.1).

              The decree of election is not rendered effectual by Christ's death, according to Calvin, but the ascension was the event that “opened the way into the Heavenly Kingdom, which had been closed through Adam” (Calvin's Institutes II.xvi.16).  Christ first shed his blood and then entered heaven to intercede for God's people.  This is foreshadowed by the Old Testament High Priest who never entered the place of intercession without the blood having first been shed (Commentary on Isa. 53:12).  The analogy is this: “The death of Christ was the fulfillment of open sacrifice on the Altar; the Intercession was the fulfillment of the high priests sprinkling the blood on the Mercy Seat. It is there that the atonement is limited, not at the place of the sacrifice” (p. vii, Kendall).

              Christ intercedes only for the elect. They alone receive the grace to believe that Christ died for them. “I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours” (John 17:9).

              Kendall records the words of Georgius, who argues “Christ is the propitiation of the sins of whole world; and hence those who wish to exclude the reprobate from participation in Christ must place them outside the world” (pp. 229–230).  This argument has no weight with Calvin because, as this quote from Calvin's Sermons on Isaiah affirms:

“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.  But the solution lies close at hand; that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but should have eternal life (John 3:16). For the present 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.”

              According to Calvin, Christ “gives himself to be enjoyed” to the elect only by continually interceding for them at the “mercy seat.”

              Again, Calvin notes that the message that “God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them” (2 Cor. 5:18, 19) “reaches to all, but that it is not sealed indiscriminately on the hearts of all to whom it comes so as to be effectual.”

              Serious students of Calvin admit that there is only one instance in Calvin's writings that appears to be an explicit denial of a universal atonement. This solitary quote is far from obvious. The second appendix to Kendall’s book (1997 edition) is an extract from the Ph.D. thesis of Dr. Curt Daniel (New College, Edinburgh, 1983). Daniel discusses in detail this single example of what appears to be the only “explicit denial of the universality of the atonement” that can be found in all of Calvin's writings (Kendall, p. 231–238).

              According to Daniel, this single instance appears where Calvin is refuting Heshusius' view that unbelievers eat and drink the body and blood of Christ when they profanely partake of the Lord's Supper. Heshusius (a Lutheran) contended that this is true because it is said “this is my body” and “this is my blood.” Calvin believed that Christ is only spiritually present (not physically) in the elements. That is, Christ is truly present in the elements of the Lord's Supper only for those who partake in true faith by the power of the Holy Spirit.

              Calvin therefore argues: “And as he [Heshusius] adheres so doggedly to the words, I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh which was not crucified for them? And how they can drink the blood which was not shed to expiate their sins? I agree with him, that Christ is present as a strict judge when his supper is profaned.  But it is one thing to be eaten and another to be a judge. . . . Christ, considered as the living bread and the victim immolated on the cross, cannot enter any human body which is devoid of his Spirit” (Tracts and Treatise, Vol. II, P. 527).

THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH IS NOT “AN EXPLICIT DENIAL OF

THE UNIVERSALITY OF THE ATONEMENT.”

              Calvin, in the above quote, points to the fact that Heshusius “adheres so doggedly to the words.” What words? “This is my body,” “this is my blood.” By adhering “so doggedly to the words,” Heshusius insists that unbelievers eat and drink the body of Christ as they profanely partake in the Lord’s Supper. Calvin is arguing that Christ is only spiritually present and consequently only those who partake in true faith eat and drink the body and blood of Christ.

              Daniel says, “We would paraphrase the words in the Treatise quotation as follows: ‘I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ if they do not believe that Christ was crucified for them'” (Kendall, p. 236).

              Traditionally, Reformed scholars have looked at the phrases “the flesh which was not crucified for them” and “the blood which was not shed to expiate their sins” in isolation from the context of Calvin's refuting Heshusius’ view of the physical presence of Christ in the elements of the Lord’s Supper. So viewed, the phrases appear to teach that Calvin did not believe that Christ was crucified and shed his blood for “all men.”

              Beginning with this supposedly “clear teaching,” they then claim that all the other references in Calvin's writings about the extent of the atonement must be interpreted in the light of “this one explicit statement” (Kendall, p. 232).  Daniel argues against such a methodology by noting that it strikes him as strange indeed that those who so intensely search among the writings of Calvin can only produce this solitary quotation.  He then observes, “Surely to argue on the basis of this solitary quote, no matter what it means, against the flood of the rest of the testimony is precarious at best” (Kendall, p. 231).

FURTHER PROOF

              In the rest of this appendix, Daniel cogently argues his case by citing the many references in Calvin's Institutes, the Treatise and Calvin’s Commentaries that emphasize that those who do not partake of the supper in true faith by the power of the Spirit do not eat the body or drink the blood of Christ.

              Daniel concludes that Calvin taught that: “Christ died for all men. The believer knows that he is a man and therefore that Christ died for him.  Saving faith accepts this.”  Daniel continues: “The conclusion is that without a Universal atonement no man can know by the Gospel that Christ died for him.  In this sense we can agree with Kendall’s introductory sentence to his first Posting. ‘Fundamental to the doctrine of faith in John Calvin (1509-1564) is his belief that Christ died indiscriminately for all men’” (Kendale, P. 238).

REFUTATIONS OF KENDALL’S WORK

              Paul Helm’s book, Calvin and Calvinists, (The Banner of Truth Trust, 1982) is intended to be a rebuttal of Kendall's work. He spends most of his energy refuting not what Calvin actually says, but what he determines Calvin must have been saying about the extent of the atonement. His argument, like that of nearly all of Kendall's detractors, is based on what Calvin says about the other four points of doctrine set forth by the Synod of Dort. From these observations they draw the logical conclusion that Calvin must have believed in a “limited” atonement.

              A more recent book that supposedly debunks Kendall's thesis is The Glory of the Atonement. (Eds. Charles Hill and Frank James III, Intervarsity Press, 2004) This is a 495-page, scholarly, well-written, and extremely well-organized treatment of the biblical basis, historical development, and practical implications of the doctrine of the atonement. However, in this book we are also told that the defenders of Kendall “. . . usually fail to perceive the logic of ‘definite atonement' and what it consistently allows, that is, sufficiency for all, universal offer, salvation accomplished for the ‘race' as an organic whole, and the like” (pp. 280–281). This is the same kind of argument used by Helm and others, determining what Calvin “must have believed” in their attempt to refute Kendall's thesis.

              The uncritical reader thinks this type of argument, based on the coherency of the Five Points of Dort, refutes Kendall's thesis.  It does not do so.  At most, such arguments do nothing more than demonstrate that Calvin is not always consistent in his writings.

              The Glory of the Atonement says precious little about Calvin's handling of the “world” and “all men” passages of the Scriptures. It adds nothing to what others have said or implied regarding the precise question at issue. It does not counter the sixteen pages of compelling passages Kendall cites directly from Calvin's writings in his Appendix #1.

              The question is not what “the logic of definite atonement” would compel Calvin to say, if he was consistent. Neither is the question “what would Calvin have said” if he had been confronted with the Arminian propositions.  The question is, what in fact did Calvin actually say and teach regarding the “world” and “all men” passages of the Scriptures.

              We should take note of the fact that ever since the framers of Dort responded to the five points of Arminianism, evangelical scholars have been obligated to take one side or the other in their interpretation of the so-called "universalistic" texts. They had to accept either the “certain-to-be-realized salvation” element (as Calvinists do) or the “all persons” ingredient (as Arminians do) of the so-called “universalistic” texts.  The only other possibility they had was to accept both elements, as Universalists do.

              The result of the four hundred-year struggle between Arminianism and Calvinism (see Posting 1) is a conviction, among those who wish to refute Kendall's thesis, that Calvin must have made the same kind of choice they have been compelled to make. These theologians are unalterably opposed to what Calvin says, namely that “Christ died indiscriminately for all men.” Everything in their psyche rejects what Kendall and others before him have demonstrated that Calvin actually taught.

              In his theologizing about the “world” and “all persons” passages, Calvin simply does not make the Hobson's choice that evangelical theologians, ever since Dort, have been forced to make. John Calvin accepted the so-called “universalistic” texts as written teaching us “that Christ died indiscriminately for all men,” however, this sacrifice is made effective only in the lives of those for whom Christ intercedes at the mercy seat..

              To make the claim, as J.I. Packer and many others do, that the Synod of Dort's formula of limited atonement states what Calvin “would have said had he faced the Arminian thesis” (Kendall, p. 1) misses the point completely.  For the question is not “what Calvin would have said.” The question is, “What, in fact, did Calvin say about the extent of the atonement?” or “How did Calvin understand the meaning of the so-called ‘universalistic’ passages?”

              Calvin's doctrine of faith would provide the church with a clear basis in its outreach ministry for saying to everyone “Christ died for you.”  Such a gospel would also provide an assurance of salvation for believers. Because Christ atoned for the sins of every human being, therefore believers may know that Christ atoned for their sins.

              However, Calvin's doctrine of faith is not viable for two reasons:

1. The Rule of Intended Consequences — The three persons of the Trinity are fully united in their work and intentions. Election by the Father, redemption by the Son, and sanctification by the Holy Spirit are all intended for the same persons. “Those God foreknew . . . he also glorified” (Rom. 8:29–30). "Being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus" (Phil. 1:6). God does not begin a good work for anyone and not "carry it on to completion."

2. God's Justice — If some perish for whom Christ died, then God would be demanding double payment for sin in some instances. By his blood Christ purchased all those for whom he died (Rev. 5:9); nevertheless, from some of these “purchased” individuals a final judgment is also exacted. Such double penalties are fitting, according to Calvin, because such reprobates are “doubly culpable.” Their sin makes them guilty. This is combined with their ingratitude “. . . in not receiving the blessing in which they could share by faith” (Kendall, p. 16).

This response by Calvin is inadequate for many reasons. Among them is the fact that It could conceivably apply for those who hear the gospel but it would not pertain to those who never hear the good news during their lifetime on earth. Calvin and other theologians of that age had little or no awareness of such people. 

CONCLUSION

               "Fundamental to the doctrine of faith in John Calvin is his belief that Christ died indiscriminately for all men.” My purpose in presenting this claim made by Kendall is not to claim that Calvin's view of the atonement is scriptural or to show how Calvin's view of the atonement is related to that of Beza, the Puritans, or to other Calvinists. My only intent is to report what Calvin actually believed and taught regarding the so-called “universalistic” texts.

              In Posting 1, I strongly argue that it is impossible to avoid the fact that the so-called "universalistic" texts speak of a certain-to-be-realized salvation and they do so in terms of all persons.  Calvin, like Evangelical Inclusivism, accepted the fact that the so-called “universalistic” texts speak of “redemption” in terms of “all persons” and that any restriction of these universal claims must be garnered from the broader context of the Scriptures. Calvin found this restriction in the fact that Christ intercedes only for the elect. Evangelical Inclusivism finds this restriction in the description the Scripture gives of all those who will be finally lost.