D. James Kennedy - Union with Christ and Extent of Atonement in Calvin by Robert Palculict

CHAPTER Two Interpreting Calvin

To approach the question of John Calvin's understanding of the extent of the atonement it will be necessary first to begin with the broader question of interpretation. This approach will be necessary because nowhere does Calvin deal explicitly with the issue of the extent of the atonement as he does other doctrines such as predestination or the number and nature of the sacraments. The situation therefore calls for us to interpret Calvin in the absence of a full discourse on the subject. We should avoid the temptation to read Calvin as some traditional Calvinists have done, interpreting Calvin's near silence on this issue as an indication that he did not feel it necessary to address explicitly the issue of the extent of the atonement because, as they claim, limited atonement was such a fundamental presupposition for the rest of his theology. This is certainly the case with both Paul Helm and Roger Nicole. Both Helm and Nicole stress that since Calvin holds to a substitutionary view of the atonement, this disallows the possibility that he held to a universal atonement.1 They argue that since Calvin taught that Christ actually secured salvation on the cross then only the following are possible: (1) if Christ died for all of humanity, then all of humanity must be saved, owing to the fact that Christ's death actually saves those for whom it was intended; or (2) if not all of humanity is to be saved, then Christ must not have

Union With Christ

died for all of humanity. Thus, since Calvin held to a substitutionary atonement and further held that not all would be saved, then Calvin must have held to a limited atonement. They argue by inference from Calvin's substitutionary doctrine of the atonement that Calvin necessarily must have held to a doctrine of limited atonement. Helm admits that Calvin does not present limited atonement as an explicit doctrine yet states that "Calvin, not being a universalist, could be said to be committed to definite atonement, even though he does not commit himself to definite atonement."2 Nicole remarks that "it is difficult to imagine that Calvin failed to perceive the necessary link between substitution and definite atonement, or that, having perceived it, he carried on without regard to this matter!"3 We must not assume that Calvin held to limited atonement, simply because he believed that Christ died as our substitute. Instead we should try to interpret Calvin carefully, paying particular attention to the way he actually uses scripture since it is his actual interpretation and use of scripture that is at issue here. Therefore, it will be necessary, at least briefly, to investigate the nature of Calvin's interpretive practices. I will outline some of the features of Calvin's hermeneutic for insight into how he actually uses scripture. I will make use of the recent studies by David L. Puckett and Thomas F. Torrance as well as the earlier studies by H. Jackson Forstman and Hans-Joachim Kraus.4 With this background as to how Calvin uses scripture, I will examine those passages in Calvin that have a bearing on the question of his understanding of the extent of the atonement. I will pay particular attention to those passages that some have claimed indicate that Calvin held to particular redemption. In this process it will be shown that Calvin is overwhelmingly universalistic in his understanding of the extent of the atonement. Furthermore, it will be shown that some interpreters of Calvin project upon Calvin a hermeneutic that was foreign to his actual interpretive practice. It will be the conclusion of this chapter that some of those who claim that Calvin held to a limited atonement make such a claim because they can see no way in which he could hold to a view of the

Interpreting Calvin

atonement that is both universal and substitutionary.

Hermeneutical Background John Calvin has been called the first "modern" biblical scholar. The influence of his early humanist and legal studies had a tremendous effect on how he interpreted the Scriptures. As Thomas Torrance explains, his studies had opened his eyes to the obscurantism and traditionalism of the interpreters of his day.5 His humanist training had taught him a respect for ancient texts and the necessity of interpreting them within their own historical contexts. His legal studies had shown him the convincing and convicting power of words.6 These two elements came together in his biblical exegesis. His respect for the text of scripture moved him to strive for the proper understanding of the text. His belief that the Scriptures were a "word" from God compelled him to make their meaning clear so that the words of scripture might have their proper effect upon their hearer. While it may be an oversimplification to say that Calvin had a particular hermeneutical practice, or that he consistently followed certain rules in his interpretation, it is possible to point out certain features or characteristics of his exegesis that shaped, or at times even constrained, his exposition. One such characteristic of Calvin's exegesis is his conviction that all of scripture comprises a unity.7 Because all of scripture is a revelation from God, and since God is perfect and truthful, then scripture will neither mislead the reader nor will it contradict itself. Calvin's insistence upon the unity of scripture often leads him to depart from what would otherwise be the simplest interpretation of some passages. For example, when Calvin comes to certain passages in scripture, which seem to indicate that all of humanity will be saved, he feels compelled to interpret them in such a way as to make them compatible with the doctrine of election, which he believes is clearly taught throughout scripture. A case in point is his interpretation of Romans 5:18 ("Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation

Union With Christ

for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men").8 This passage seems to indicate that grace and forgiveness actually extend to all persons. Being careful to interpret this passage in such a way that it not contradict other passages that indicate that not all will experience salvation, Calvin interprets it as follows: Paul makes grace common to all men, not because it in fact extends to all, but because it is offered to all. Although Christ suffered for the sins of the world, and is offered by the goodness of God without distinction to all, not all receive him.9

Calvin prefers to interpret this passage as setting forth a universal offer of salvation as opposed to interpreting it as teaching a universal application of salvation. Because of his view that all of scripture comprises a unity and cannot contradict itself, Calvin must interpret this passage in such a way as to make it compatible with other statements in scripture. A second feature of Calvin's hermeneutic that is important for our present discussion is his belief that all of scripture, indeed all of revelation, is an accommodation on the part of God to his creatures.10 Because we humans are finite and sinful and have no natural capacity to understand the things of God, God has chosen to lower Himself to our level, as it were, in order to communicate Himself to us. In one famous passage from the Institutes Calvin describes God's accommodation to humanity in revelation in terms of a nurse lisping to an infant. For who even of slight intelligence does not understand that, as nurses commonly do with infants, God is wont in a measure to 'lisp' in speaking with us? Thus such forms of speaking do not so much express clearly what God is like as accommodate the knowledge of him to our slight capacity. To do this he must descend far beneath his loftiness.11

While scripture conveys true knowledge of God, the reader of scripture must recognize the accommodated nature of scripture and resist the temptation to go beyond the limits of knowledge found in scripture. The above passage reflects a certain humility in

Interpreting Calvin

Calvin's approach to theology. Calvin's Institutes, for example, were not intended to provide a system of theology whereby all theological questions would be answered. Rather, the Institutes were intended as a guide to reading the Scriptures. Calvin even cautions his readers regarding the use of philosophy not to let their thoughts or speech "go beyond the limits of the Word of God... For how can the human mind measure off the measureless essence of God?... Let us then willingly leave to God the knowledge of Himself ,"12 This aspect of Calvin's handling of scripture is a sharp contrast to many latter Calvinists. John Owen, for example, who wrote what has become the classic English language expression of the doctrine of particular redemption, displays a strikingly different attitude with regard to knowledge of God. In his address "To the Reader" prefacing The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, Owen begins by stating that he had spent "more than seven-years' serious inquiry... into the mind of God.13 Such a claim that the mind of God is open to human investigation would be unheard of from the pen of Calvin.14 Much of Owen's argument in this work is based upon inference from other doctrines or from what he claims is known about God. For example, universal atonement is rejected, in part, because it is said to be absolutely incompatible with the doctrine of election.15 Also, Owen frequently dismisses universal atonement on the grounds that it would indicate a weakness or failure on God's part. He argues that if any of those for whom Christ died do not actually come to salvation, then this would mean that God was not able to do what He purposed. Since God always accomplishes what God purposes, and since some people are not ultimately saved, then Christ must not have died for those people.16 Throughout The Death of Death, Owen displays an attitude toward human knowledge of God and human ability to discern the things of God that is very different from Calvin's. In contrast to Owen, Calvin was a man who, as William Placher describes, "was willing to leave questions unanswered, 'necessary consequences' underived, and apparent inconsistencies suspended in tension."17

Union With Christ

These first two characteristics of Calvin's hermeneutic are the most important and far reaching elements of his exegetical practice for they underlie his entire approach to scripture. There are other aspects of his exegesis that should also be mentioned. HansJoachim Kraus has listed eight principles that he says Calvin followed in his exegesis.18 The first such principle that Kraus mentions is that Calvin strove for clarity and brevity. Calvin felt that one's exegesis should not disguise the text with unnecessary flourishes or interpretations. For this reason Calvin did not attempt to argue against every interpretation that had been given for a particular passage. In fact, he generally ignored spurious interpretations except in those cases where he felt that an answer must be given to a particularly unsound interpretation.19 The next four principles that Kraus finds operative in Calvin are what may be termed "modern" principles of exegesis. For example, Calvin sought to understand the intention of the author. In order to know the intention of the author it is necessary to understand the historical, geographical, and institutional circumstances that were determinative for the author's situation. Once this background has been established, then the real (or original) meaning of the text must be established in order to find the author's intention. Also, Calvin frequently appealed to the context of a passage when faced with exegetical problems or differing opinions as to how to interpret a passage. The final three principles of Calvin's exegesis enumerated by Kraus are less "modern" in tone than those mentioned in the previous paragraph. According to Kraus, Calvin sought to determine the extent to which exegesis could go beyond the literal wording of the text, for example, in seeking the intention of the Lawgiver behind the actual wording of the Ten Commandments. Calvin also sought to recognize metaphorical language and to deal with it properly. Finally, Kraus mentions the principle of the "scope of Christ," meaning that Calvin sought to read the Old Testament with the intention of finding Christ there. Each of these principles of interpretation finds its place according to what passage Calvin is exegeting. For example, when deal-

Interpreting Calvin

ing with the Lord's Supper, Calvin appeals to the metaphorical nature of the language employed by the Evangelists. Wanting to find a place in Christian teaching for the Ten Commandments, he seeks to find God's intention behind the law. While the foregoing discussion of Calvin's exegetical method is far from exhaustive, it should be sufficient to provide some guidance as we endeavour to determine Calvin's view on the extent of the atonement. Therefore, the remainder of this chapter will be dedicated to an examination of relevant passages from Calvin's writings that have a bearing on his view on the extent of the atonement. The examination of these passages will show how Calvin freely and unhesitatingly employed universal language to describe the extent of the atonement. I will also deal with the various arguments that have been offered to advance the claim that Calvin held to limited atonement. This examination of his writings will show that he was overwhelmingly universalistic in his understanding of the extent of the atonement. At the end of this chapter I will identify what I feel is the primary element in the particularists' insistence that Calvin must have held to limited atonementâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;their inability to conceive of any circumstance in which the atonement could have been both universal and substitutionary.

Universal Language in Calvin Since Calvin nowhere deals with the extent of the atonement as a separate doctrine, it will be necessary to search his writings for places where he uses either universal or particular language with reference to the extent of the atonement. The situation therefore calls for an inductive examination of the evidence from Calvin's writings, taking his statements at face value wherever possible. While the ultimate objective of this book is to show how Calvin's understanding of union with Christ allowed him to hold to a view of the atonement that was both substitutionary and universal, my conclusion in this chapter that Calvin held to universal atonement will not be predicated on his view on union with

Union With Christ

Christ. The discussion in this chapter will show that there is sufficient evidence for the claim that Calvin held to universal atonement without resorting to deduction from other areas of Calvin's theology. The subsequent chapters will answer the charge, arrived at through deduction, that Calvin must have held to limited atonement because he also held to a substitutionary view of the atonement. There are many circumstances in which Calvin makes use of universal language with regard to the atonement. Some of these occur when he is exegeting scriptural passages that employ universal language. At other times he writes of Christ dying for the whole world when he is commenting on a passage, which itself, does not make a statement about the extent of the atonement. There are instances where Calvin consciously universalizes passages that later particularists argue indicate that Christ died only for the elect. The concept of universal atonement also provides the ground for theological statements about other issues, particularly regarding the condemnation of the reprobate. Furthermore, there are places in his polemical writings in which he is in agreement with his adversaries' use of universal language with regard to the atonement. In the process of analyzing these passages we will see the freedom with which Calvin employs universal language to describe the atonement. Unqualified Universal Statements in Calvin When reading Calvin, one is struck with the sheer number of unqualified universal statements that he makes regarding the atonement. Many of these are simple assertions that Christ died for the redemption of humanity or the salvation of the whole human race. The following are a few examples: They had already been warned so many times that the hour was approaching in which our Lord Jesus would have to suffer for the redemption of the whole world (en laquello nostre Seigneur lesus devoit souffrir pour la redemption du genre humain)?0 God commends to us the salvation of all men without exception, even

Interpreting Calvin as Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, (nam omnium salus sine exceptione nobis a Deo commendatur, quemadmodum pro peccatis totius mundi passus est Christus)21 It was not a common or small favour that God put off the manifestation of Christ to their time, when he ordained Him by His eternal counsel for the salvation of the world (quum tamen ilium aeterno suo consilio in mundo salutem ordinasset)... Hence, according to His wonderful wisdom and goodness, He ordained that Christ should be the Redeemer, who would deliver the lost race of man from ruin (qui perditum genus humanum ab interitu eriperet)22 When he says 'the sins of the world,' he extends this kindness indiscriminately to the whole human race (Et quum dicit mundi peccatum, hanc gratiam ad totum genus humanum promiscue extendit) that the Jews might not think that the Redeemer has been sent to them alone... Now it is for us to embrace the blessing offered to all, that each may make up his own mind that there is nothing to hinder him from finding reconciliation in Christ if only, led by faith, he come to Him.23 For it is very important for us to know that Pilate did not condemn Christ before he himself had acquitted Him three or four times, so that we may learn from it that it was not on His own account that he was condemned but for our sins. We may also learn how voluntarily he underwent death, when he refused to use the judge's favorable disposition to Him. It was this obedience that made his death a sacrifice of sweet savour for expiating all sins.24 He must be the redeemer of the world (Redempteur du monde). He must be condemned, indeed, not for having preached the Gospel, but for us He must be oppressed, as it were, to the lowest depths and sustain our cause, since he was there, as it were, in the person of all cursed ones and of all transgressors (d'autant qu'il estoit la comme en la personne de tous maundits et de tous transgresseurs), and of those who had deserved eternal death (et de ceux qui avoyent merite la mart eternelle). Since, then, Jesus Christ has this office, and he bears the burdens of all those who had offended God mortally, that is why he keeps silence (D'auant doncque Jesus Christ ha vest office-Id, et qu'il porte lesfardeaux de tous ceux qui avoyent offense Dieu mortelle, ent, voyla porquoy is se taist).25 Our Lord Jesus was offered to the world... suffered for all.26

Union With Christ

All of the above passages state in one way or another that Christ died for the sins of the whole world. In none of these cases does Calvin qualify the universal language that he employs.27 There are also passages in which Calvin presents Christ as providing expiation for or bearing the sins and guilt of the whole world. [Paul] 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 (nam sacrificio mortis eius expiata sunt omnia mundi peccata).28 On him was laid the guilt of the whole world.29 God is satisfied and appeased, for he bore all the wickedness and all the iniquities of the world.30 ... the death and passion of our Lord Jesus would not have served anything, to wipe away the iniquities of the world, except insofar as he obeyed.31 Christ interceded as his [man's] advocate (hie Christum deprecatorem intercessisse), took upon himself and suffered the punishment that, from God's righteous judgement, threatened all sinners (poenam in se recepisse ac luisse quae ex iusto Dei iudicio peccatoribus omnibus imminebat); that he purged with his blood those evils which had rendered sinners hateful to God; that by this expiation he made satisfaction and sacrifice to God the Father.32 ... [Christ was] burdened with the sins of the world.33

There are a few passages in which Calvin presents Christ as appearing before the judgement seat of God in the place of all sinners. ...But though our Lord Jesus by nature held death in horror and indeed it was a terrible thing to Him to be found before the judgement-seat of God in the name of all poor sinners (for he was there, as it were, having to sustain all our burdens), nevertheless He did not fail to humble Himself to such condemnation for our sakes. (Mais en tant que nostre Seigneur lesus da nature avoit la mart en horreur, et mesmes que ce luy estoit une chose espovanrable de se trouver devant le siege iudidal de Dieu au nom de tons povres pecheurs.) 34

Interpreting Calvin

Let us note well, then, that the Son of God was not content merely to offer his flesh and blood and to subject them to death, but He willed in full measure to appear before the judgement seat of God His Father in the name and in the person of all sinners (au nom et en la personne de tous pecheurs), being then ready to be condemned, inasmuch as he bore our burden (poire d'autant qu'ilportoit nostrefardeau)?5

At this point it would be appropriate to introduce an objection sometimes raised by particularist interpreters of Calvin. Some particularists have understood Calvin's inclusion of exclusive phrases, such as the phrase "our burdens" in the two passages above, to indicate a qualification. They argue that Calvin's use of this more exclusive phrase constitutes a qualification of the previous phrase, thus indicating that the entire sentence was meant to refer only to the elect.36 Yet, it may be argued that a particular reference to what Christ has done for "us" need not be understood as excluding the non-elect. Furthermore, even if Calvin meant to refer to the elect alone when he mentions the benefit that we receive from Christ when he bears our burdens, there is no indication that he meant this phrase to be understood as qualifying the previous universal phrase. Given the great freedom with which Calvin elsewhere uses universal language to describe the death of Christ, there is no good reason to understand passages such as the two above to indicate a conscious decision on the part of Calvin to limit the death of Christ to the elect alone unless one is predisposed to qualify all such references oneself. It is apparent from the previous unqualified statements that Calvin was not so predisposed. There are other passages that could be listed in which Calvin spontaneously employs universal language to describe the atonement.37 It may be argued that these spontaneous assertions, several of which appear in his sermons, may simply be the result of imprecision on Calvin's part. Yet, there are many examples in which Calvin consciously employs the idea of universal atonement. Several instances of this practice occur in his exegesis of passages to which particularists generally appeal when arguing the case for particular redemption. I am referring to Calvin's

Union With Christ

treatment of those passages that speak of Christ dying for "many." Calvin's Universalizing of the "Many" Passages When particularists argue for their position, it is frequently the case that they begin with an appeal to those passages in scripture that speak of Christ dying for "many," or for "his sheep," or "his Church." This is certainly the case with John Owen's argument in The Death of Death in the Death of Christ. Owen begins the first chapter of this work by asking for whom it was that Christ died. He appeals to Matthew 20:28 ("the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many") and other similar passages as setting forth the normative scriptural teaching on the question of the extent of the atonement. Owen argues that these passages are properly to be understood as teaching that Christ died only for many people and not for all people.38 He works from the assumption that the word "many" was consciously employed by the biblical writers with the intention of excluding some. This argument is frequently employed even by contemporary particularists.39 When we look at how Calvin handled this and similar passages we find a striking dissimilarity between him and later "Calvinists" such as Owen. Passages such as Matt 20:28 provided Calvin with a perfect opportunity to affirm particular redemption if he had wanted. Instead of interpreting "many" as indicating that some were excluded from the atonement, Calvin universalizes the word "many" by interpreting it to mean "all." The following passage illustrates how Calvin interprets the evangelist's use of the word "many" as it occurs in Matt 10:28: 'Many' is used, not for a definite number, but for a large number (Multos ponit non definite pro certo numero, sed pro plunbus), in that he sets Himself over against all others. And this is the meaning also in Rom. 5:15, where Paul is not talking of a part of mankind but of the whole human race (ubi Paulus non de aliqua hominum parte agit, sed totum humanum genus complectitur}^

Interpreting Calvin

Instead of taking the opportunity to limit the atonement to the elect alone, Calvin universalizes it. Calvin's use of the word "definite" here may be understood to mean "limited," in that Calvin understood that the atonement was not made for a limited number of persons as the particularists claim this passage teaches.41 This practice of universalizing the word "many" occurs frequently in Calvin's writings. When commenting on Isa 53:12 ("he bore the sins of many") Calvin writes: He alone bore the punishment of many, because on him was laid the guilt of the whole world. It is evident from the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, that 'many' sometimes denotes 'all' (multos enim pro omnibus interdum acdpz).42

Calvin interprets Mark 14:24 ("This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many") in the same manner: 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 the Redeemer of one man, but would meet death to deliver many of their cursed guilt. No doubt that in speaking to a few Christ wished to make His teaching available to a larger number... 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.43

Calvin's exegesis of Heb 9:27 ("Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many") follows the same line of interpretation: 'To bear the sins' means to free those who have sinned from their guilt by his satisfaction. He says many meaning all (Multos dicit pro Omnibus), as in Rom. 5:15. It is of course certain that not all enjoy the fruit of Christ's death (non omnes ex Christi morte fructum percipere), but this happens because their unbelief hinders them. The question is not dealt with here because the apostle is not discussing how few or how many benefit from the death of Christ, but meant simply that he died for others, not for himself. He therefore contrasts the many to the one (Itaque multos uni opponit).**

Union With Christ

Once again Calvin universalizes the word "many" to include all sinners, not just the elect. Special note should be taken of the contrast that Calvin makes in the two previous passages. Calvin understands the biblical writers to be contrasting the "many" with the "one" Jesus Christ. Calvin wants his readers to understand the teaching of the biblical writers, that it was not for himself that Christ died but for others. In contrast to Calvin's handling of this and the similar passages already mentioned, it is usually the practice of particularists to contrast "many" with "all." A typical particularist interpretation of these two passages would be that the biblical writers intended to teach that Christ died for "many" sinners as opposed to "all" sinners.45 Contrary to this reading, Calvin interprets these passages to mean that Christ died for others and not for himself. According to Calvin, the biblical writers are not contrasting the "many" people from the "few" people. Rather, Calvin is contrasting the "many" people from the "one" Christ. One last passage in which Calvin universalizes the word "many" is from a sermon on Isa 53:12 ("he bore the sins of many"). That, then is how our Lord Jesus bore the sins and iniquities of many. But in fact, the word 'many' is often as good as equivalent to 'all.' And indeed our Lord Jesus was offered to all the world. For it is not speaking of three or four when it says: 'God so loved the world, that he spared not His only Son.' But yet we must notice what the Evangelist adds in this passage: 'That whatsoever believes in Him shall not perish but obtain eternal life.' Our Lord Jesus suffered for all and there is neither great nor small who is inexcusable today, for we can obtain salvation in Him. Unbelievers who turn away from Him and who deprive themselves of Him by their malice are today doubly culpable, for how will they excuse their ingratitude in not receiving the blessing in which they could share by faith?46

The five passages above demonstrate a conscious and deliberate universalizing of the atonement. Contrary to the practice of most particularists, Calvin did not take the opportunity presented by these verses to interpret the word "many" in such a way as to limit the atonement only to the elect. The fact that this practice of

Interpreting Calvin

universalizing the word "many" occurs so frequently and in different contexts (in his commentaries as well as his sermons) goes far towards demonstrating not just a predisposition towards a belief in a universal atonement, but an explicit teaching on the matter. The Culpability of Unbelievers and the Gospel Offer The last passage above introduces yet another element in Calvin's understanding of the atonement, that unbelievers will be held doubly culpable for rejecting the one who died for them. As has already been shown in the preceding passage, Calvin presents Christ as having suffered for all. At the end of the passage he points to the unbelievers' rejection of this same Christ as increasing their culpability. The last sentence of the passage in question reads as follows: Unbelievers who turn away from Him and who deprive themselves of Him by their malice are today doubly culpable, for how will they excuse their ingratitude in not receiving the blessing in which they could share by faith?47

Here Calvin points to the fact of the unbelievers' rejection of the Christ who died for them as yet another reason for their condemnation. Calvin's assumption in this passage is that Christ has indeed died for those who reject him. Their rejection of the one who died for them serves to increase their culpability because of their ingratitude. Calvin's understanding of the content of the gospel offer should be noted at this point, in that he understands that the Christ who is offered in the gospel has died for the one to whom he is offered, even when he is offered to those who reject him. This understanding of the gospel offer differs significantly from that usually held by particularists. Particularists generally claim that what unbelievers are rejecting is the "gospel." The content of the gospel that they are rejecting is not that Christ died for them, but rather, simply that Christ died for sinners. The same concept holds true when the believer trusts in the gospel. It is not required that

Union With Christ

the convert believe that Christ died for him. It is only required that he believe that Christ died for sinners.'18 Yet, it is clear from Calvin's theology that the offer of salvation is based upon the fact that Christ died for all those to whom salvation is offered, even those who reject the gospel. That saving faith consists of the belief that Christ has died for "me" personally is found throughout Calvin's writings. One such instance is in his commentary on Galatians 2:20 ("I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me"). Commenting on this verse he writes that: For me is very emphatic. It is not enough to regard Christ as having died for the salvation of the world; each man must claim the effect and possession of this grace for himself (Neque parum energiae habet pro me: quia non satis fuerit Christus pro mundi salute mortuum reputare, nisi sibi quisque effectum ac possessionem huius gratiae privatim vindicet).*9

In a sermon on the same passage Calvin's words are much more to the point. Whereas it is said that the Son of God was crucified, we must not only think that the same was done for the redemption of the world: but also every one of us must on his own behalf join himself to our Lord Jesus Christ, and conclude, it is for me that he hath suffered.50

Notice that in order to be joined with Christ it is necessary to believe that "it is for me that he suffered." It is not sufficient merely to believe that Christ suffered for "sinners." The fact that Calvin grounds the universal offer of salvation in a universal atonement can be seen throughout his writings. One such occurrence is in his commentary on Romans 5:18 ("Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men"). Calvin interprets this verse as follows: Paul makes grace common to all men, not because it in fact extends to

Interpreting Calvin

all, but because it is offered to all. Although Christ suffered for the sins of the world, and is offered by the goodness of God without distinction to all, yet not all receive him. (Communem omnium gratiam facit, quia omnibus expositae est, non quod ad omnes extendatur re ipsa: nam passus est Christus pro peccatis totius mundi, atque omnibus indifferenter Dei benignitate offetur, non tamen omnes apprehendunt).51

Because Calvin believed that only certain people had been eternally predestined to salvation, he does not interpret the second half of this verse to mean that all will be saved, as the phrase might seem to indicate. Neither does he interpret this verse as a particularist might, by arguing that the "all" should be understood as referring only to "all the elect." Rather, Calvin clearly recognizes a universal intent in the biblical writer but interprets the passage to mean that Christ is offered to all the world. In so doing he is able to interpret this verse in such a way as to make it compatible with the doctrine of election. Yet, his explanation as to why salvation does not actually extend to all contains an affirmation that Christ suffered for the sins of the world. Christ's suffering for the sins of the whole world is presented as the basis for the universal offer of salvation to the world. The reason given why salvation does not extent to all is not that Christ did not die for all. Rather, salvation does not extend to all because not all believe. Calvin's commentary on Galatians 5:12 also indicates that he understood the universal preaching of the gospel as being grounded in a universal atonement. He writes: God commends to us the salvation of all men without exception, even as Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world (nam omnium salus sine exceptione nobis a Deo commendatur, quemadmodum pro peccatis totius mundi passus est Christus).52

In the passages cited here it is clear that Calvin understands the universal offer of the gospel to be based upon Christ's having died for the whole world. Thus, when the unbeliever rejects the gospel, he is rejecting the very one who died for him.

Union With Christ

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

Interpreting Calvin

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 (Jn 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 (Nee vero qualis 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

Union With Christ

world. Rather, Calvin counters the argument by attacking Georgius' second premiseâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;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 operato 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

Interpreting Calvin

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 for 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 himself.64 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.

Objections Raised by Particularists In the preceding discussion I have demonstrated the great freedom with which Calvin employs universal language in reference to the extent of the atonement. It has been shown that not only does Calvin fail to qualify this universal language, but he even interprets certain passages as being universal that most particularists indicate are clearly and explicitly teaching that Christ died only for the elect. It has also been shown that Calvin has rejected the ex opere operato theory that is one of the main presuppositions of particularism. Despite this evidence, objections to the

Union With Christ

claim that Calvin held to universal atonement have been raised by particularists. Some have pointed to what they claim are explicit statements from Calvin in which he limits the atonement to the elect, or hermeneutical practices that indicate that Calvin shared the same hermeneutical practices as later particularists. The remainder of this chapter will be devoted to answering these objections raised by particularists. Calvin's Qualification of Certain "All" Passages One of the most frequently cited arguments that Calvin did not hold to universal atonement is the occurrence of qualifications of the word "all" to mean something other than "all the people in the world" in certain passages in Calvin's writings. Particularists argue that since Calvin has stated that the word "all" can be qualified in this way, then we should interpret those many passage in which Calvin states that Christ died for "all" the world to be qualified as well. Let us look at the passages in question to see if there is any validity in the particularists' argument. Commenting on I Tim 2:4, ("who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth") Calvin counters the objection that this passage precludes the doctrine of election. They argue, 'If God wills all men without distinction to be saved, then it is not true that by his eternal counsel some have been predestined to salvation and others to perdition.' There might be some grounds for holding this if in this passage Paul were concerned with individuals (si Paulus hie de singulis hominibus ageret), although even then there would still be a good answer. For although it is true that we must not try to decide what is God's secret will by prying into his secret counsel, when He has made it plain to us by external signs, yet that does not mean that God has not determined secretly with Himself what He wishes to do with every single man. But I pass from that point which is not relevant to the present context, for the apostle's meaning here is simply that no nation of the earth and no rank of society is excluded from salvation, since God wills to offer the Gospel to all without exception (quia omnibus sine exceptione Evangelium proponi Deus velit). Since the preaching of the Gospel brings life, he rightly concludes that God regards all men as being equally worthy to share in salvation. But he is speaking of classes

Interpreting Calvin

and not of individuals (At de hominum generibus, non singulis personis, sermo est) and his only concern is to include princes and foreign nations in this number.... There is a duty of love to care a great deal for the salvation of all those to whom God extends His call and to testify to this by Godly prayers.65

Calvin's comments on the same verse while refuting Pighius in his treatise Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God is almost identical. Who does not see that the reference is to orders of men rather than individual men? Nor indeed does the distinction lack substantial ground; what is meant is not individuals of nations but nations of individuals. At any rate, the context makes it clear that no other will of God is intended than that which appears in the external preaching of the Gospel-

Upon examination of the above comments on I Tim 2:4 it is necessary first to understand that Calvin is not dealing with the question of the extent of the atonement but with the extent of actual salvation. He is arguing against those who use this verse as a proof text against the doctrine of predestination. Intent on safeguarding the doctrine of election Calvin interprets this verse to be dealing with the revealed will of God. The revealed will of God, that God intends all to be saved, is the ground for the universal preaching of the gospel. When he limits the word "all" to refer only to classes and not to individuals, he means that this verse tells us nothing about which individuals God, according to his secret will, has intended to save. Special note should be taken of Calvin's usage of the word "individuals." He clearly understands the word to refer to a finite and particular group of people. He insists in both of these passages that 1 Tim 2:4 is not speaking of those individuals who will actually be saved, but of humanity in general. Calvin explicitly states that this passage does not speak of the secret will of God, but rather the revealed will of God. Thus, his concern is to show that the revealed will of God mentioned here does not preclude that in His secret will God has made certain determinations re-

Union With Christ

garding each individual. Thus, this verse is not to be understood as teaching anything about God's actual intention to save certain individuals. Rather, it should be understood only to be dealing with the universal offer of salvation. There is indeed some slight similarity between Calvin's interpretation of this verse and certain particularist interpretations of scripture. When particularists come to those biblical passages that state that Christ died for the "world" or for "all," they generally interpret those verses to mean that Christ died for "all kinds of people," for "Gentiles and not just Jews," or simply for "all the elect." Yet it should be remembered that, in this context, Calvin means only to limit the extent of actual salvation and not the extent of the atonement. Another qualification of the word "all" comes shortly after Calvin's comments on 1 Tim 2:4. His comments on 1 Tim 2:5-7 ("For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and Men, the Man Jesus Christ, who gave himself as a ransom for all") come closer to making the particularists point than 1 Tim 2:4 examined above. Yet, upon further examination, Calvin's comments on this passage cannot be taken to mean that he held to particularism. The passage in question reads as follows: His meaning is the same in what he goes on to say about the one mediator. For as there is one God, the Creator and Father of all, so he declares, there is one mediator, through whom access to God is opened to us, and this Mediator is not given to one nation, or to a few men of a particular class, but to all, for the benefit of the sacrifice, by which He has expiated for our sins, applies to all. Since at that time a great part of the world had alienated itself from God, he explicitly mentions the Mediator through whom those who were far off now draw nigh. The universal term 'all' must always be referred to classes of men but never individuals (Particula umversalis semper ad hominum genera referri debit, non ad personas). It is as if he said, 'Not only Jews, but also Greeks, not only people of humble rank but also princes have been redeemed by the death of Christ.' Since therefore He intends the benefit of His death to be common to all, those who hold a view that would exclude any from the hope of salvation do Him an injury (Quum itaque commune mortis suae beneficium omnibus esse velit, miuriam illifaaunt, qui opinione sua quempiam arcent a spe salutis).67

Interpreting Calvin

Upon an initial reading of this passage, it does seem that Calvin is limiting the atonement while alluding68 to the phrase "who gave himself as a ransom for all." Referring to this phrase Calvin states that the "universal term 'all' must always be referred to classes of men but never individuals." The particularists' claim at this point is that Calvin is giving the traditional particularist interpretation of this passage: that Christ did not give himself as a ransom for "all men/individuals," but rather he gave himself for "all kinds of men." Yet, a closer inspection of the context will show that this is not what Calvin meant to communicate. First, it should be noted that this comment comes under Calvin's discussion of verse five and not verse six. When he comes to the commentary on verse six proper, he makes no mention of the extent of the atonement. In his comments on verse five Calvin is discussing the Apostle Paul's argument that the universal offer of the gospel is due to the fact that there is one God and One mediator between God and men. Just previous to the passage quoted above, Calvin remarks that the Apostle is comparing the oneness of God with the oneness of humanity. Whatever diversity there was among men at that time, in that many ranks and nations were strangers of faith, Paul reminds believers of the oneness of God, that they may know that there is a bond between them and all men . . . that they may know that those who are under the power of the same God are not excluded forever from hope of salvation."69

hi the next paragraph, the paragraph under dispute, Calvin discusses the significance of the "one Mediator." Just as there is a oneness among men because they are under the power of the one God, so there is a oneness among men because they all share the same Mediator. Remember that throughout his comments on this chapter, Calvin is answering the charge that these verses rule out the doctrine of election. His argument here is that it is because of this unity of humanity that the gospel offer is valid, even when offered to the reprobate. Humanity is a unity because we all share the same God and the same mediator. Of this mediator, Calvin says that he "is not given only to one nation, or to a few men of a

Union With Christ

particular class, but to all."70 Second, we must examine Calvin's actual use of the word "individual^)" in this chapter. Calvin is clearly using the word "individual^)" to speak of a finite class of individuals. In his comments on verse four of the same chapter, Calvin makes it clear that the Apostle is not speaking of which "individuals" God, according to his secret will, has intended to save. Rather, this chapter is dealing with the revealed will of God. Calvin's use of the word "individual" in this context may be compared to his use of the word "definite" in his commentary on Matt 20:28, that "'many' is used, not for a definite number, but for a large number."71 Calvin apparently is using the word "individuals" to refer to a definite or particular class of people. Thirdly, the last sentence in the passage under dispute would make little sense were Calvin to be understood to be teaching particular atonement. Calvin writes that since Christ "intends the benefit of His death to be common to all, those who hold to a view that would exclude any from the hope of salvation do Him an injury."72 Calvin's central point in his comments on 1 Tim 2:4-6 is that the universal offer of salvation is compatible with the doctrine of election. The universal offer of salvation is a valid offer because of the unity of humanity, a unity displayed in the fact that we all, elect and reprobate alike, share the same God and the same Mediator. As we saw earlier, Calvin frequently bases the validity of the universal offer of salvation on the fact that Christ has died for the whole world.73 This is why God can offer the gospel to the whole world. If Christ had not intended "the benefit of His death to be common to all," then some would have been excluded "from the hope of salvation." Calvin states that any who would hold to such a position would do Christ an injury. Surely Calvin did not mean to include himself in this company. There are other passages in which Calvin qualifies the word "all," many of which are not even dealing with the atonement, much less the question of the extent of the atonement. Calvin's commentary on Titus 2:11 is one such passage. In his commentary on this passage ("For the grace of God has appeared for the salva-

Interpreting Calvin

tion of all men") he writes: He expressly declares that salvation comes to all men, having especially in mind the slaves of whom he has just been speaking. He does not mean individuals, but rather all classes of men with their diverse ways of life, and he lays great emphasis on the fact that God's grace has condescended even to slaves. Since God does not despise even the lowest and most degraded class of men, it would be extremely foolish that we should be slow and negligent to embrace his goodness. (Nominatim universis communem esse testatur propter servos, de quibus loquutus erat. Interea non intelligit singulos homines, sed ordines potius notat, aut diversa vitae genera. Atque hoc non parvam emphasin habet, quod Dei gratia ad servile usque genus se demiserit. Nam quum Deus ne infimos quidem et postremae sortis homines despicat, plus quam absurdam foret, nos ad amplexandam eius bonitatem pigros esse ac desides)7*

The verse in question would seem to indicate that salvation will actually come to all people. As he had done on several occasions mentioned above, Calvin disallows the interpretation that this verse deals with the salvation of particular individuals. This verse does not mean to teach that all will be saved, rather, this verse deals with God's revealed will only. Calvin's only intent in this passage is to make it clear that the Scriptures do not teach that all will be saved. Calvin is always careful to ensure that passages such as this are not allowed to be interpreted as teaching that all of humanity will be saved. He therefore qualifies the word "all" in his comments here to make the verse compatible with election. In God's revealed will God can express the desire that all be saved. Yet, in his secret will, God can will that only his elect actually come to salvation. His qualification of the word "all" in this context is meant to limit the extent of salvation and not the extent of the atonement. None of his comments here can be construed to mean that he understood the extent of the atonement to be limited. Calvin's comments on John 6:45 ("It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught of God'") are to be interpreted similarly: When He says all, it must be limited to the elect, who alone are the true

Union With Christ children of the Church. ... Isaiah shows that the Church is only truly built up when her children are taught by God.75

Calvin frequently used the language of being "taught" by God to indicate what a believer experiences when he or she believes the gospel. Since not all will be saved, then not all will be "taught" by God. He therefore limits this salvific benefit to the elect alone for only the elect will be "taught" by God in such a way that they actually come to be partakers of salvation. Commenting on John 12:32 ("and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself") Calvin writes: When He says all it must be referred to the children of God, who are of his flock. Yet I agree with Chrysostom, who says that Christ used the universal word because the Church was to be gathered from Gentiles and Jews alike.76

Calvin understands this verse to be speaking of the special calling of the Holy Spirit. Since not all are effectually called to salvation, Calvin limits this verse to apply only to the elect. It is only the "drawing" that is being limited by Calvin, not the actual atonement of Christ. Commenting on John 17:9 ("I am praying for them; I am not praying for the world but for those whom thou hast given me, for they are thine") Calvin writes: But we are commanded to pray for all, and Christ afterward prayed for all indiscriminately, 'Father forgive them; for they know not what they do.' I reply, the prayers which we utter for all are still limited to God's elect. We ought to pray that this and that and every man may be saved and so embrace the whole human race, because we cannot yet distinguish the elect from the reprobate.77

Calvin's comments on this verse refer to the believers' prayers offered to God for the salvation of the lost. Calvin's argument is that, while God has elected only some people to salvation, we are called to pray for all people for we do not know who among them are actually the elect of God. This verse and Calvin's comments have no bearing on the question of the extent of the atonement.78

Interpreting Calvin

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 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 this passage. For John's purpose was only to make 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

Union With Christ

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

Interpreting Calvin

he was arguingâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;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 It is quite clear from the passages cited above that Calvin did sometimes limit the word "all" to refer to "classes of men" as opposed to "all men" as is indeed similar to later particularist interpretations of scriptural passages that use universal language to speak of the death of Christ. It needs to be asked why it is that particularists appeal to such passages as indicating that Calvin held to limited atonement. The reason is simple. Particularists take as normative the biblical passages that speak of Christ dying for "many" or for "his sheep" or "his Church." They interpret these passages as teaching that Christ died only for "many" rather than "all" people. When particularists come to those biblical passages that speak of Christ dying for the "world" or for "all," they interpret them to conform to what they have already determined to be the normative scriptural teaching, that Christ died only for "many." Thus, the passages that teach that Christ died for "all" are interpreted to mean that Christ died for "all sorts of people" or "all of the elect." By appealing to the passages in Calvin where he qualifies the word "all," particularists believe they have found a commonality between their own interpretation of Scripture and Calvin's. The particularists' argument regarding the above passages from Calvin is that they demonstrate a predisposition in Calvin to limit the word "all" to refer to "all classes of people" or "people of all sorts," rather than "all people indiscriminately." This appeal is, in essence, a claim that Calvin shared their hermeneutic. It is obvious that this appeal is meant to create ambiguity

Union With Christ

with regard to Calvin's meaning in those many places where he employs universal language to speak of the atonement. This is obviously the situation in the case of Roger Nicole.86 Not only does Nicole list some of these passages as proof against the claim that Calvin held to universal atonement, he draws attention to the fact that, in many other passages where Calvin uses universal language to describe the extent of the atonement, there are also to be found particular references to what Christ has done "for us" or for "his people."87 Nicole's argument is that the presence of limiting phrases such as these should be understood as qualifying Calvin's own use of universal language when describing the extent of the atonement. The larger implication is quite clear. If Calvin is predisposed to qualify the word "all" when it appears in scripture, then it is reasonable to interpret those places where Calvin himself uses the word "all" as meaning something other than "all" when he is speaking of the extent of the atonement. It needs to be asked whether this is a reasonable conclusion from the passages discussed above in which Calvin qualifies the word "all." Even if we grant for the sake of argument that Calvin was predisposed to qualify the word "all" when it appears in Scripture, upon what grounds do we make the leap that this gives us license to qualify Calvin's own use of universal language when describing the atonement? It is one thing to find in Calvin a predisposition to occasionally qualify the word "all" when it occurs in scripture. It is quite a different matter to state that Calvin's qualification of the word "all" in scripture should lead us to read Calvin's own use of the word "all" as being similarly qualified wherever it appears in his own writings. Doing such is all the more absurd when one considers how Calvin elsewhere freely uses universal language to describe the atonement. Not only should we resist the temptation to find in Calvin a biblical hermeneutic that we ourselves may employ, we should also resist the greater temptation of reading Calvin's own words by means of that hermeneutic. Such a leap is both unfounded and absurd. It should further be noted that to read consistently every instance where Calvin uses the words "all" and "world" as meaning only

Interpreting Calvin

part of the world would lead us to an even greater absurdity. Also, in answer to the charge that Calvin was predisposed to limiting the word "all" with reference to the extent of the atonement, we should remember Calvin's explicit teaching on universal atonement in his argument with Georgius and his interpretation of those passages that speak of Christ dying for "many." Contrary to the practice of particularists, Calvin extends the meaning of the word "many" to include "all." It is clear that Calvin did not share that part of the particularist hermeneutic that understands these passages to be teaching that Christ died only for "many" and not for "all." If Calvin were indeed predisposed to understand the word "all" to be limited in this way, then why does he universalize these passages, which, according to the particularist position, are clearly limited to begin with?88 It should be concluded that the passages considered above cannot reasonably be employed to argue that Calvin shared the same biblical hermeneutic as later reformed theologians. Furthermore, while it is true that Calvin did sometimes limit the word "all," he generally did so in order to limit the extent of actual salvation and not the extent of the atonement. Calvin's Disagreement with Heshusius There is one final quotation from Calvin that needs to be addressed. The passage in question comes in his treatise against Tileman Heshusius on the question of the true presence of Christ in the supper. Heshusius, a Lutheran, held to the view of consubstantiation; that the body and blood of Christ are truly present in and with the supper, even when taken by unbelievers. Calvin argued that faith was necessary for a person to receive any spiritual benefit from the supper. The particular section of this treatise which has a bearing on the question of Calvin's view on the extent of the atonement reads as follow: But the first thing to be explained is how Christ is present with unbelievers, to be the spiritual food of souls, and in short the life and salvation of the world. And he adheres so doggedly to the words, I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh which was not crucified

Union With Christ for them, and how they can drink the blood which was not shed to expiate their sins? (scire velim quomodo Christi carnem edant impii, pro quibus non est crucifixa, et quomodo sanguinem bibant, qui expiandis eorum peccatis not est effusus.) 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.89

What Calvin is arguing against in this passage is the idea that the body and blood of Christ are locally present in the elements of the supper. Calvin objected to a local presence in the supper because it would make all of the participants partakers of Christ even if they were unbelievers. It was the idea that unbelievers partook of Christ in the supper that most disturbed Calvin. This is so because, for Calvin, to be a partaker of Christ is to have salvation. Only believers have salvation in Christ, and therefore, only believers partake of Christ in the supper. Indeed, it is because of their faith that believers partake of Christ in the eucharist. Calvin says that "we eat Christ's flesh in believing, because it is made ours by faith, and that this eating is the result and effect of faith."90 If unbelievers truly partake of the body of Christ in the supper, then this means that the flesh of Christ is not vivifying. Calvin will not allow this. The portion of the above quotation that is offered as evidence that Calvin held to particular redemption is where it is asked: "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?" It is alleged that Calvin's argument is that unbelievers do not partake of Christ in the supper because Christ did not die for them. Is this truly what is being asserted here or is there perhaps a better interpretation of this passage? Curt D. Daniel has offered an explanation for this passage which I believe is the best interpretation of Calvin's intended meaning here. Daniel draws attention to the phrase "I should like to know...," which introduces the sentences in question. Daniel

Interpreting Calvin

compares this phrase to other instances where it occurs. In one such instance Calvin is also discussing the Lord's supper when he says "I should like to know from them how long they (the wicked) retain it (the true body of Christ) when they have eaten it."91 Daniel correctly notes that the phrase "I should like to know" introduces an idea that Calvin is clearly rejecting, that the wicked actually eat and retain Christ in the supper. This quotation from the Institutes is a rhetorical device and is clearly not meant to convey Calvin's position on the issue. To the contrary, the phrase introduces a concept with which he is in disagreement, hi the quote from the Institutes, what Calvin is rejecting is the claim that the wicked eat and retain Christ. In the passage from the Treatise, Calvin is rejecting what is presumably the claim by Heshusius, that the wicked "eat the flesh which was not crucified for them." Yet, it should be noted that Heshusius was a Lutheran and thus did not deny that Christ died for the whole world. How then are we to explain Calvin's comments given this fact? Daniel's explanation for this centers around the fact that for Calvin, true saving faith consists of the person's belief that Christ has died for him. I have already discussed Calvin's understanding of the content of saving faith earlier in this chapter. Yet, it will be beneficial to see some of the quotations to which Daniel appeals in order to make his point. One passage from one of Calvin's sermons on Isaiah is a very clear statement that saving faith consists of the belief that Christ died for the person believing: For it is not enough that Jesus Christ suffered in His person and was made a sacrifice for us; but we must be assured of it by the Gospel; we must receive that testimony and doubt not that we have righteousness in Him, knowing that He has made satisfaction for our sins.92

Calvin's comments on Mark 14:24 are even more explicit on this point: 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 each should reckon to himself that his own sins are covered.93

Union With Christ

Note that in the second quotation Calvin states that Christ has redeemed the whole world. Yet, it is insufficient merely to believe that Christ died for the world. Saving faith is believing that Christ has indeed died for oneself. In this particular passage, true partaking of Christ requires believing that Christ has died for the believer. Calvin's understanding of saving faith is key to Daniel's interpretation of the disputed passage from the treatise against Heshusius. Heshusius believed that the wicked partook of the body and blood of Christ even in the absence of saving faith, in the absence of faith that Christ died for them.94 Daniel paraphrases the disputed passage from the Treatise 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."95 Daniel's point is that it is Heshusius who holds the belief that a person can truly partake of Christ in the supper in the absence of faith that Christ died for him.

Conclusion We have seen in this chapter how Calvin freely utilizes universal language when describing for whom it was that Christ died. His use of universal language to describe the atonement is found throughout his sermons, his commentaries, as well as the Institutes. There are several explicit statements where Calvin sets forth the belief that Christ died for the whole world, hi his remarks against Georgius, for example, Calvin states that "it is incontestable that Christ came for the expiation of the sins of the whole world."96 It should also be remembered that in this same passage Calvin rejects the ex opere operato theory that is at the very heart of the particularist's position. Calvin also interprets those passages that speak of Christ dying for "many" to mean that he died for all. This practice of Calvin's is exactly contrary to what one would expect were he a particularist. While some have drawn attention to those few places where Calvin seems to be espousing particularism, these can easily be explained. Even if the explana-

Interpreting Calvin

tions that I have given for these passages are deemed to be inadequate, one must weigh these few passages against the far more numerous explicit universal statements. It thus seems reasonable to conclude from the evidence given that Calvin held to universal atonement rather than limited atonement. Despite evidence such as that given in this chapter, there are many who still refuse to consider the possibility that Calvin may have held to a universal atonement. Many admit to knowledge of the numerous universal passages cited in this chapter and yet refuse to waver in their opinion that Calvin was a particularist.97 Is it mere loyalty to the person for whom the Calvinist system is named that creates such steadfast claims that Calvin was a particularist? Such an answer would be far too simplistic.98 No one, particularist or otherwise, looks to Calvin as if he were some kind of Reformed Pope. There must be some other explanation for their unbending opinion that Calvin was a particularist. It is frequently the case in the arguments of those wishing to claim Calvin as a particularist that an appeal is made to other areas of Calvin's theology, which presumably, rule out the possibility that Calvin could have taught universal atonement. William Cunningham, for example, argues that Calvin's doctrine of election leaves no room for a universal atonement, for this would admit to an anomaly in God's sovereign government of the world since many of those for whom Christ is said to have died would not ultimately be saved.99 A far more common appeal is made to the fact that Calvin held to a substitutionary view of the atonement. It is argued that the mere concept of substitution rules out the possibility that Calvin held to universal atonement. In arguing this point Roger Nicole remarks that "it is difficult to imagine that Calvin failed to perceive the necessary link between substitution and definite atonement, or that, having perceived it, he carried on without regard to this matter!"100 It is the assumption of most particularists that to hold to a view of the atonement that is both substitutionary and universal requires one also to hold that all will ultimately be saved. Otherwise, it is argued, one must deny the saving efficacy

Union With Christ

of the death of Christ. J. I. Packer very clearly expresses this opinion when he writes: If we are going to affirm penal substitution for all without exception we must either infer universal atonement, or else, to evade this inference, deny the saving efficacy of the substitution for anyone; and if we are going to affirm penal substitution as an effective saving act of God we must either infer universal salvation or else, to evade this inference, restrict the scope of the substitution, making it a substitution for some, not all.101

The concern that a universal atonement necessitates a universal salvation is specifically mentioned by Paul Helm as a reason why it cannot be said that Calvin taught universal atonement. Helm admits that Calvin does not present limited atonement as an explicit doctrine. Yet/ he states that "Calvin, not being a universalist, could be said to be committed to definite atonement, even though he does not commit himself to definite atonement."102 The general argument of those who hold that Calvin was a particularist is as follows: since Calvin taught that Christ died as our substitute, and since he clearly taught that not all would be saved, then it must necessarily follow that he held to limited atonement. The two premises in this argument should be affirmed by all who have read Calvin, yet, it must be asked whether the conclusion given necessarily follows from the premises. Is it true that the concept .of substitution necessitates a limited atonement? Could it be that Calvin's understanding of substitution differed from the later Reformed concept of substitution? It does seem to be true that the particularist's inability to see any situation in which the atonement could be universal as well as substitutionary is central to their claim that Calvin could not have taught universal atonement. The remainder of this book will be devoted to showing how Calvin's concept of substitution, rooted in his understanding of the believer's union with Christ, allowed him to hold to a view of the atonement that was both universal and substitutionary. Two passages from Calvin's writings will serve as an intro-

Interpreting Calvin

duction to the theme of union with Christ and its connection to Calvin's understanding of substitution. Introducing them at this juncture may help the reader to begin thinking about how Calvin viewed our connection to Christ as being key to our receiving the salvific benefits of his death. The first passage is found at the beginning of the third book of the Institutes. In book three Calvin is dealing with the question of how we obtain the grace of Christ and the benefits of his death. In the very first section of the first chapter of book three Calvin has this to say: And the first thing to be attended to is, that so long as we are without Christ and separated from him, nothing which he suffered and did for the salvation of the human race is of the least benefit to us (quandiu extra nos est Christus, et ab eo sumus separati, quicquid in salutem humani generis passus est ac fecit, nobis esse inutile nulliusque momenti.) To communicate to us the blessings which he received from the Father, he must become ours and dwell in us (in nobis habitare). Accordingly, he is called our Head, and the first-born among many brethren, while, on the other hand, we are said to be ingrafted (inseri) into him and clothed (induere) with him, all which he possesses being, as I have said, nothing to us until we become one with him (coalescimus).m

Notice the importance that Calvin places on our union with Christ. When we are separated from Him, all that he has suffered "for the salvation of the human race" is of no benefit to us. Calvin goes on to say that in order for the benefits of Christ's suffering to be communicated to us, we must be engrafted into Christ so that he dwells in us. This passage contains a clear statement that Christ suffered for the whole world. Yet, the fact that Christ has suffered for the whole world does not make his suffering effectual for the whole world as the particularist's argument would require. According to Calvin, we must still come to possess the benefits of his death in some way. We come to possess the benefits of Christ's death only when "we become one with him." In this passage the actual application of salvation is very clearly linked to our union with Christ.104 The second passage that I will mention as an introduction to the theme of union with Christ is found in Calvin's refutation of

Union With Christ

Georgius in his treatise Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God. I have already dealt with the explicit affirmation of universal atonement found in this passage. What is important about this passage, insofar as concerns the question of Calvin's understanding of union with Christ is the "solution" which he gives to Georgius' argument. The particular portion of Calvin's answer to which I refer reads as follows: But the solution lies close at hand, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but should have eternal life (Jn 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 (Nee vero qualis 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 reconed in the number of God's children who will be a partaker (particeps) of Christ.105

Earlier I showed how this passage constitutes a rejection by Calvin of the ex opere operate theory. Georgius was arguing that all the world would be saved since Christ had died for all the world. Calvin counters Georgius' argument by stating that it is the presence of faith in believers that separates them from the reprobate. Yet, he says something beyond this. He states that the death of Christ is not efficacious in itself but its efficacy depends upon "to whom He gives Himself to be enjoyed." The death of Christ becomes effectual when we are joined to Christ himself. Not all will be God's children as Georgius has argued. Only those who are actually made "a partaker of Christ" will come to share in the benefits of the death of Christ. In both of these passages union with Christ is presented as being central to making the death of Christ efficacious in the life of the believer. This statement should not be misunderstood as taking anything away from the centrality of faith which Calvin and all the reformers stressed. What this statement is intending to communicate is that Calvin understood union with Christ as being the means by which the Holy Spirit communicates to the believer the salvific benefits found in the person of Christ. Calvin's

Interpreting Calvin

emphasis in his concept of union with Christ is that even though Christ became the substitute for the sins of the whole world, only those who are ingrafted into Christ and made one with him will come to share in the salvific benefits of their substitute, Jesus Christ. In the next chapter I will begin my examination of Calvin's concept of union with Christ and the impact this concept has on his understanding of the atonement. I will begin this process by examining Calvin's concept of the incarnation, the union of God and man in the person of Jesus Christ.

Notes 1.

Paul Helm, Calvin and the Calvinists (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1982): 43-44; and Roger Nicole, "John Calvin's View of the extent of the Atonement," Westminster Theological Journal 47 (Fall 1985): 218.

Helm, Calvin and the Calvinists, 18.

Nicole, "John Calvin's View," 224.

David L. Puckett, John Calvin's Exegesis of the Old Testament (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995). Thomas F. Torrance, The Hermeneutics of John Calvin (Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1988). H. Jackson Forstman, Word and Spirit: Calvin's Doctrine of Biblical Authority (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1962). Hans-Joachim Kraus, "Calvin's Exegetical Principles" Interpretation 31 (January 1977): 8-18. This is a translation of "Calvin's exegetische Prinzipien," Zetischrift Fur Kirchengeschichte 79 (1968): 329-41, translated by Keith Crim.

Torrance, Hermeneutics, 101. Torrance presents Calvin as the "father of modern theology" and biblical exposition (61) because of his intense interest in what the texts meant in their original contexts and to their original hearers. See Torrance also for a detailed account of the humanist and legal influences upon Calvin. '

See William Placher's chapter on "Calvin's Rhetoric of Faith" in his The Domestication of Transcendence (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 52-53, for a concise but measured opinion on the influence Calvin's humanistic and legal training had upon him.

Union With Christ

This characteristic of Calvin's hermeneutic is acknowledged by Puckett, Torrance, and Forstman. Forstman has an overall negative opinion of the role that Calvin's understanding of the unity of scripture played in his exegesis. Frostman feels that Calvin's antiquated concept of scripture forced him into compromising too frequently his historical method. He accuses Calvin of employing "rather devious techniques and notions in order to maintain his theory" of the unity of scripture (Word and Spirit, 123). Puckett has a more measured opinion of this presupposition of Calvin's. Puckett points out that Calvin tried to hold to both a historical exegesis as well as a belief in the unity of scripture. Puckett explains that Calvin attempted to interpret scripture historically but did so in such a way as not to compromise the unity of scripture (John Calvin's Exegesis, 43).

All Scriptural references are from the Revised Standard Version, (Division of Christian Education of the National Councill of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America, O.T. copyright 1952, N.T. copyright 1946).

Calvin, Comm., Rom 5:18, New Testament Commentaries, ed. D. W. and T. F. Torrance, 12 vols (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1959-1972), vol. 8, N.T.C. 5.78. All Latin references to Calvin's New Testament commentaries are from loannis Calvini in Novum Testamentum Commentarii, ed. A. Tholuck, 7 vols., (Amsterdam: Berolini, 1833-34), hereafter N.T.C. All references to the Latin edition of the Institutes are from Calvin, loannis Calvini Opera Selecta, ed. P. Earth and G. Niesel, 2d ed. (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1926-1936), hereafter O.S. All other Latin and French references are from loannis Calvini Opera cjuae Supersunt Omnia, ed. W. Baum, E. Cunitz, and E. Reuss, 59 vols., Corpus Reformatorum, vols. 29-87, (Brunswick: C. A. Schwetschke and Son, 1863-1900), hereafter C.O.

10. Calvin frequently employs this idea in defense of the concept of the unity of scripture discussed above. When seemingly conflicting ideas are expressed in the Old and New Testaments, Calvin frequently appeals to the accommodated nature of revelation as an explanation. One way he would do this is by suggesting that God had accommodated His language to the Jewish people for they were not yet ready for the deeper truths revealed in Christ. The "fault" then lies neither in the Scriptures nor in God's communication, but rather in the readiness of the particular audience for the message. 11. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford L. Battles, 2 vols., Library of Christian Classics Series nos. 20-21 (London: S. C. M. Press, 1960), 1.31.1., O.S. 4.1.

Interpreting Calvin

12. Calvin, Institutes, 1.13.21., O.S. 3.136. This particular feature of Calvin's hermeneutic actually poses a problem for the present work. Calvin's reluctance to delve into the mysteries of God extends to the question of the exact nature of the believer's union with Christ. Calvin's failure to explain completely how union with Christ accounts for both the forensic as well as the experiential elements of salvation creates a problem for later Reformed theology. (See: William Borden Evans, "Imputation and Impartation: The Problem of Union With Christ in Nineteenth Century American Reformed Theology" [Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt University, 1996]). While Calvin's exact understanding of the nature of our union with Christ is not unimportant for the present discussion, of greater importance will be his understanding of the role played by union with Christ in the application of the benefits of the death of Christ to the believer. 13. John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (Edinburgh: Johnstone & Hunter, 1852; repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1967), 37, italics added. 14. This can be seen especially when Calvin is writing about the doctrine of election. Throughout Book 3, chapters 21-24 of the Institutes Calvin frequently cautions his readers not to attempt to search the secret counsel of God's wisdom and purpose in election. In Institutes 3.21.4 his rebuke of those who attempt to seek out the secret counsel of God concerning election is quite harsh: "By inquiring out of the proper way, I mean puny man endeavors to penetrate to the hidden recesses of the divine wisdom, and goes back even to the remotest eternity, in order that he may understand what final determination God has made with regard to him. In this way he plunges headlong into an immense abyss, involves himself in numberless inextricable snares, and buries himself in the thickest darkness," O.S. 4.373. 15. Owen works with the assumption that the doctrines of election and particular atonement stand or fall together. He routinely refers to those who reject limited atonement as Arminians because he can imagine no situation in which the atonement could be both substitutionary and universal. 16. This way of thinking permeates Owen's work. One particular reference can be found in his preface "To the Reader" (Death of Death, 37). A similar thing is seen in his discussion of the question whether God loves the world (210-12). He concludes that God can have no general love for the world since God's love is not completed in all. It is completed only in the elect. To say that God loves the entire world would mean that there is a weakness in God, since his love would not actually result in a favorable end for many

Union With Christ whom He is said to love. The opinion put forth by Owen, that if some of those for whom Christ died are ultimately lost indicates a failure in God's government of the world, is shared by William Cunningham and is given by him as a reason why Calvin could not have held to universal atonement (The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation [Edingburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1862]), 399.

17. Placher, Domestication of Transcendence, 53. 18. Kraus, "Calvin's Exegetical Principles," 329-41. 19. In the preface to his commentary on the Psalms, Calvin explains that entering into controversies in his commentaries would detract from the clarity of his exposition. When he does offer arguments against others' interpretations, he does so only when there is reason to believe that "there was reason to fear that by being silent respecting them, I might leave my readers in doubt and perplexity" (preface to Comm on the Psalms, 7, C.O. 31.18). 20. Calvin, The Deity of Christ and Other Sermons, trans, by Leroy Nixon (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1950), 55, C.O. 46.836. 21. Calvin, Comm., Gal 5:12, N.T.C. 6.68. 22. Calvin, Comm,, 1 Pet 1:20, N.T.C. 7.186. 23. Calvin, Comm. John 1:29, N.T.C. 3.21. 24. Calvin, Comm., John 19:12, N.T.C. 3.343. 25. Calvin, The Deity of Christ and Other Sermons, 95, C.O. 46.870. This quotation is interesting in that in it Calvin makes no distinction between who the transgressors were or who was deserving of eternal death. While it is true that the elect were at one time transgressors and deserving of eternal death, there is nothing here to indicate that Calvin had only the elect in mind. Furthermore, appealing to the fact that Calvin switches to more exclusive language ("for us" and "our cause") and arguing that he had in mind only the elect, may be countered with the fact that he then continues by saying that Christ was there "in the person of all cursed ones and of all transgressors, and of those who had deserved eternal death." Surely the elect were not the only transgressors deserving of eternal death. In this passage Calvin can only reasonably be understood to have been writing about what Christ had done for the whole human race.

Interpreting Calvin

26. Calvin, Sermons on Isaiah's Prophecy of the Death and Passion of Christ, ed. and trans, by T. H. L. Parker (London: James Clarke and Co., 1956), 141, C.O. 35.680. 27. There are some who argue that in some of these passages Calvin also uses more particular language such as Christ's being "oppressed for us." It is argued that this more specific language, referring to Christians, indicates the true extent of whom Calvin was speaking. This objection will be dealt with below. 28. Calvin, Comm., Col 1:14, N.T.C. 6.225. 29. Calvin, Comm., Isa 53:12, vol. 4,131. All references to Calvin's Old Testament commentaries are from the Calvin Translation Society series, 90 vols., (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1845-1854) unless otherwise noted. 30. Calvin, Sermons on Isaiah's Prophecy of the Death and Passion of Christ, 70, C.O. 35.637. 31. Calvin, The Deity of Christ and Other Sermons, 155, C.O. 46.919. 32. Calvin, Institutes, 2.16.2, O.S. 3.483 33. Calvin, Comm., Matt 26:39, N.T.C. 2.314. 34. Calvin, The Deity of Christ and Other Sermons, 155-56, C.O. 46.919. 35. Ibid., 52. 36. Roger Nicole makes this point in relation to the two quotations above in his article "John Calvin's View," 197-225. See also Paul Helm, Calvin and the Calvinists, 43-44. 37. Calvin, Sermons on Isaiah, 70, C.O. 35.637; Comm., John 1:5, N.T.C. 3.4; Comm., John 1:11, N.T.C. 3.8; Comm., Rom 5:18, N.T.C. 5.78; Institutes, 3.1.1., O.S. 4.1; The Deity of Christ and Other Sermons, 242, C.O. 48.622. Some have also drawn attention to Calvin's statement in his last will as proving that he held to universal atonement (see Curt Daniel, "Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill" [Ph.D. diss., University of Edinburgh, 1983], 789; R. T. Kendall, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649 [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979], 13). The statement in question reads as follows: "I further testify and declare that as a suppliant I humbly implore of him to grant me to be so washed and purified by the

Union With Christ blood of that sovereign Redeemer, shed for the sins of the human race, that I may be permitted to stand before his tribunal in the image of the Redeemer himself," Letters of John Calvin, vol. 4, ed. J. Bonnet, tran. D. Constable (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1858), 365-369.

38. Owen begins with the assumption that these are the normative passages for interpreting all passages which speak of those for whom Christ died. It is not until book four of his work that he addresses those passages which speak of Christ's dying for the whole world. Having already arrived at the conclusion that the "many" passages provide the norm for understanding the extent of the atonement, he is left to attempt to explain away all the passages which speak of Christ dying for the whole world. 39. This argument from Owen is one of the most common arguments employed in defense of particular redemption. It is affirmed by J. I. Packer in the introduction to the Banner of Truth Trust's edition of The Death of Death. See also John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1955), 62-63. 40. Calvin, Comm., Matt 20:28, N.T.C. 2.181. In his commentary on Rom 5:15, Calvin asks us to observe "that a larger number (plures) are not here contrasted with many fynultis), for he speaks not of the number of men: but as the sin of Adam has destroyed many, he draws this conclusion,â&#x20AC;&#x201D;that the righteousness of Christ will be no less efficacious to save many," N.T.C. 5.76. He specifically states that "many" is not to be understood as being contrasted with a larger number, such as "all." 41. Limited atonement, or particular redemption, is often frequently termed "definite" atonement, particularly in deference to those who might take offence at the idea that there may have been "limits" to the death of Christ. Some Calvinists thus employ the phrase "definite atonement" to clarify their meaning to be that Christ came to die for certain people only, not that there was any limit as to how many people for whom Christ could have died. Calvin's use of the word "definite" here is a clear indication that he rejected the idea that there were any for whom Christ did not die. 42. Calvin, Comm., Isa 53:12, C.O. 37.266. 43. Calvin, Comm., Mark 14:24, N.T.C. 2.311. 44. Calvin, Comm., Heb 9:27, N.T.C. 7.93-94.

Interpreting Calvin

45. This contrast is recognized by Curt D. Daniel in an appendix to his University of Edinburgh dissertation "Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill," (795). In his appendix entitled "Did John Calvin Teach Limited Atonement?," Daniel argues very thoroughly and convincingly that Calvin held to universal atonement. His analyses of certain problematic passages in Calvin are especially helpful and will be referred to later in this chapter. 46. Calvin, Sermons on Isaiah, 141, C.O. 35.680. 47. Ibid. See also Comm., Gal 1:3-5, N.T.C. 6.3-4; Gal. 1:16, N.T.C. 6.11. 48. See Owen, The Death of Death, 199-204, 292-298. See also J.I. Packer's introduction to this same volume, pp. 15-18; John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, 109. 49. Calvin, Comm., Gal 2:20, N.T.C. 6.28. 50. Calvin, Sermons on Galatians, 106, C.O. 50.453. 51. Calvin, Comm., Rom 5:18, N.T.C. 5.78. 52. Calvin, Comm., Gal 5:12, N.T.C. 6.68. 53. Paul 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. 54. Kendall mentions this in his brief argument at the outset of Calvin and Eng-

Union With Christ lish Calvinism, 12. See also Daniel, "Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill" 790.

55. Calvin, 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 are "The third and fourth heads I do not touch" (tertium et quartum capita non attingo), C.O. 7.443. 56. Ibid., 93, C.O. 7.436. 57. Calvin, 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 clearly 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. 58. This 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,l52, C.O. 8.337). 59. Ibid., 149, C.O. 8.336.

Interpreting Calvin

60. It 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. 61. Helm, Calvin and the Calvinists, 17. 62. Roger Nicole, "John Calvin's View," 220-21 63. Institutes, 2.17.1. 64. Calvin, Comm., Gal 2:20, N.T.C. 6.20; Institutes, 3.3.1, O.S. 4.55. 65. Calvin, Comm., I Tim 2:4, N.T.C. 6.353. William Cunningham appeals to this passage as being one explicit statement from Calvin on the question of the atonement (The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, 400). He states that Calvin follows later particularist practice by limiting verse 4 ("Who will have all men to be saved") to apply only to the elect. 66. Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, 109, C.O. 6.546. 67. Calvin, Comm., I Tim 2:5-7, N.T.C. 6.354, emphasis is original. 68. This section is actually from his comments on verse 5 when he is dealing with the significance of Paul's construction "one God/one Mediator." Calvin understands this construction to have universal implications. "Thus, whatever diversity there was among men at that time, in that many ranks and nations were strangers to faith, Paul reminds believers of the oneness of God, that they may know that there is a bond between them and all men, because there is one God over all, that they may know that those who are under the power of the same God are not excluded forever from hope of salvation When Calvin actually comes to comment on verse 6 "He gave himself. . . ," he makes no comment about the extent of the atonement but stresses its sufficiency against the Papists who include the dead saints as "associates of Christ" in his office as intercessor. 69. Calvin, Comm., I Tim 2:5, N.T.C. 6.354. 70. Ibid.

Union With Christ

71. Calvin, Comm., Matt 20:28, N.T.C. 2.181. Curt Daniel also draws the same parallel for these verses. 72. Calvin, Comm., I Tim 2:5, N.T.C. 6.354. 73. Calvin, Comm., Rom 5:18, N.T.C. 5.78; Comm., Gal 5:12, N.T.C. 6.68. 74. Calvin, Comm., Tit 2:11, N.T.C. 6.476. 75. Calvin, Comm., John 6:45, N.T.C. 3.124. Helm refers to this quotation as proof that when Calvin uses the word "all" he is not necessarily referring to the whole world (Calvin and ihe Calvinists, 46). 76. Ibid. See also Comm., John 12:32, N.T.C. 3.244. 77. Comm., John 17:9, N.T.C. 3.317, italics added. 78. It is interesting that Roger Nicole includes Calvin's comments on John 17:9 in his argument that Calvin was a particularist ("John Calvin's View," 220). It is true that Calvin writes that when we pray for "all" it should be understood that our prayers are actually limited to the elect. What is interesting is the portion that Nicole leaves out of this quotation in his article. He leaves out the phrase "and Christ afterward prayed for all indiscriminately." John 17:9 is frequently employed by particularists in their arguments that Christ died only for the elect. Their argument is as follows: (1) one of the mediatorial roles of Christ is that of priest; (2) one of the duties of the Old Testament priests was to intercede on behalf of the people; (3) Christ's words to the effect that he does not pray for the world are evidence that he did not die for the whole world since his office of intercession was acquired by him on the cross. Yet, in Calvin's comments on this passage, he makes a point to remind his readers that Christ did later pray for all indiscriminately. 79. Paul 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 schoolmen (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

Interpreting Calvin

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. 80. Calvin, Comm., I John 2:2, N.T.C. 7.286. (Amplifications causa hoc addidit, ut certo persuasi sint fideles, expiationem a Christo partum ad omnes extendi, t\ui Evangelium fide amplexi fuerint. Sed hie movetur quaestio, quomodo munditotius peccata expientur. Omitto phreneticorum deliria, qui hoc praetextu reprobos omnes, adeoque Satanam ipsum in salutem admittunt. Tale portentum refutatione indignum est. Qui hanc absurditatem volebant effugere, dixerunt, sufficienter pro toto mundo passum esse Christum, sed pro electis tantum efficaciter. Vulgo haec solutio in scholis obtinuit. Ego quanquam verum esse illud dictum fateor, nego tamen praesenti loco quadrare. Neque enim aliud fuit consilium loannis, 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. Tune enim vere, ut par est, illustratur Christi gratia, quum unica mundi salus praedicatur.) 81. Curt Daniel, "Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill/' 804. 82. Ibid., 803. 83. An 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. 84. One notable example is William Cunningham (The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, 400). Cunningham begins his discussion of the question of â&#x20AC;˘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. 85. Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, 149, C.O. 8.336.

Union With Christ

86. This could equally be deduced from Helm's writings. Both point to Calvin's inclusion of such phrases as "for us" at places where he also writes of Christ dying for the whole world. Helm and Nicole argue that the inclusion of such limiting phrases as "for us" indicate a qualification of the universal language employed by Calvin. Their point is that while Calvin does frequently employ phrases such as "Christ died for the sins of the whole world/' he should be understood to mean that "Christ died for the sins of all the elect." 87. Nicole, "John Calvin's View," 217. 88. Roger Nicole is clearly aware of the problem presented by Calvin's interpretation of the "many" passages. Immediately after he has listed the places where Calvin universalizes the word "many" to mean "all," he offers as counter evidence those places where Calvin qualifies the word "all" to mean "all classes" ("John Calvin's view," 219). It is as if Nicole, keenly aware of the import of Calvin's rejection of this key particularist interpretation, appeals to the fact that, at least sometimes, Calvin's hermeneutic does agree with his own. 89. Calvin, Theological Treatises, trans. J. K. S. Reid, Library of Christian Classics Series no. 22. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1954), 285, C.O. 9.482. 90. Calvin, Institutes, 4.17.5, O.S. 5.347. 91. Daniel, 821, quoting Institutes, 4.17.33, O.S. 5.393. Parenthetical phrases are added by Daniel for clarity. Italics are mine. Daniel mentions two other instances where Calvin uses the rhetorical phrase "I should like to know" in relation to the Lord's Supper. The first reads as follows: "I should like to know to what end Christ invites us to partake of the flesh and blood in the supper, if it be not that he may feed our souls" (Tracts and Treatises, vol. II, p. 378, C.O. 9.166). In the second Calvin asks, "I should like to know whether, according to them, this communion belongs indiscriminately to unbelievers as wells as believers" (ibid., p. 415, C.O. 9.201). 92. Calvin, Sermons on Isaiah's Prophecy of the Death and Passion of Christ, 117, C.O. 35.686. 93. Calvin, Comm., Mark 14:24, N.T.C. 2.316. 94. Daniel notes the similarity between Heshusius' view and the view of the particularists. According to the particularists, it is not necessary for saving faith that a person believe that Christ died for him specifically. It is neces-

Interpreting Calvin

sary only that he believe that Christ died for "sinners" or for the "elect." Therefore, according to the particularism when the believer comes to the Lord's table he is not required to believe that Christ died for him specifically in order to be a true partaker of Christ. This is the same position as Heshusius' with regard to the wicked truly partaking of the body and blood of Christ. 95. Daniel, "Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill," 822.

96. Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, 149, C.O. 8.336, emphasis added. 97. In his article "John Calvin's View of the Extent of the Atonement," Roger Nicole cites Curt D. Daniel's Edinburgh dissertation as his major source for the arguments used by people who argue that Calvin held to universal atonement. Daniel's treatment of Calvin's view on the extent of the atonement is very thorough. Indeed, he examines many passages which I have not dealt with in the brief survey which I have set forth in this chapter. Yet, despite his knowledge of Daniel's dissertation, Nicole still refuses to allow the possibility that Calvin did not hold to particular redemption. 98. Still, it should be noted that there exists in Reformed circles the assumption that there was a virtually unbroken interpretive continuity from Calvin to the framers of the Westminster Confession. Paul Helm aptly demonstrates this assumption when he remarks that "[t]his tradition [of biblical interpretation] . . . stretched from Calvin through his successors on the continent of Europe and the British Isles to the Puritans and the English dissenters. So t h a t . . . there was an important continuity of biblical understanding and biblical preaching" (Calvin and the Calvinists, 3). Helm specifically states that the tradition expressed in the Westminster Confession was handed down from Calvin and the reformers (ibid).

99. Cunningham, The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, 398^00. 100.

Nicole, "John Calvin's View," 224. Many of Nicole's arguments that Calvin held to limited atonement are inferential arguments such as this one. While he does refer to some of the passages where Calvin seems to be affirming limited atonement, some of the more important ones are overlooked by him (e.g., Comm., 1 John 2:2). His overall concern seems to be that the concept of substitution necessitates a limited atonement.

Union With Christ

101. J. I. Packer, "What Did the Cross Achieve?/' Tyndale Bulletin 25, no.l (1974): 37. 102. Helm, Calvin and the Calvinists, 18, italics in original. Just exactly what Helm means when he says that Calvin was committed to definite atonement even though he does not commit himself to definite atonement remains a mystery to the present writer. 103. Calvin, Institutes, 3.1.1, O.S. 4.1. 104. The importance of faith should not be overlooked. Calvin himself makes this point in the same paragraph. His concern in this section is to explain how it is that the benefits of the death of Christ's death actually accrue to us. The benefits of Christ's death come to us through our union with him brought about by the Holy Spirit. 105. Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, 149, C.O. 8.330.