Can you think of any good old fashioned, Evangelical Calvinist, “universal atonement” passages? Let me start the list:
- John 3:16
- I John 2:2
- I Timothy 4:10
- . . . anymore?
This is certainly one of the reasons we are called: Evangelical Calvinist; because we believe that Christ genuinely died for all of humanity (per the implications of the Incarnation). This might sicken someone like Scottish Federal theologian Samuel Rutherford, he said:
Christ offers in the Gospel life to all, so that they believe, but God mindeth to bestow life on a few only . . . There is no greater mystery, than this, ‘Many are called, but few are chosen.’ So Christ’s sending with his commission, cometh under a twofold notion: one is, in the intention of the Evangel; the other is, in the intention of him who proposeth the Evangel to men — I mean, God’s intention to give faith and effectual grace. The former is nothing but God’s moral complacency of grace, revealing an obligation that all are to believe if they would be saved; and upon their own peril be it, if they refuse Christ. (Thomas F. Torrance, quoting Samuel Rutherford, “Scottish Theology,” 101-02)
You might favor Rutherford’s thinking. I suppose this post is open to contrairians to “Evangelical Calvinism,” but make material points.
September 30, 2009 at 6:51 am
Is Calvin himself allowed a material comment?
Institutes, III.xxii.10 – On the universality of God’s invitation and the particularity of election:
“Let this suffice for the present: although the voice of the gospel addresses all in general, yet the gift of faith is rare. Isaiah sets forth the cause: that ‘the arm of the Lord has not been revealed to all’ [Isa. 53.1]. If he had said that the gospel is maliciously and wickedly despised because many stubbornly refuse to hear it, perhaps this aspect of universal calling would have force. But it is not the prophet’s intention to extenuate men’s guilt when he teaches that the source of the blindness is that the Lord does not deign to reveal his arm to them.’
Rutherford isn’t the only one turning in his grave.
September 30, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Hi Doug,
See Calvin’s De aeterna praedestinatione, IX.5., wherein Calvin rejects the infamous dictum, provided by Alexander of Hales, Christ’s atonement sufficient for all, efficient for the elect.
Evangelical Calvinists are right in line with Calvin on the all sufficiency of the atonement (in fact more so than their “Federal bros.”). Calvin says:
7. The Creed next mentions that he “was dead and buried”. Here again it is necessary to consider how he substituted himself in order to pay the price of our redemption. Death held us under its yoke, but he in our place delivered himself into its power, that he might exempt us from it. This the Apostle means when he says, “that he tasted death for every man,” (Heb. 2:9). By dying he prevented us from dying; or (which is the same thing) he by his death purchased life for us (see Calvin in Psychopann). But in this he differed from us, that in permitting himself to be overcome of death, it was not so as to be engulfed in its abyss but rather to annihilate it, as it must otherwise have annihilated us; he did not allow himself to be so subdued by it as to be crushed by its power; he rather laid it prostrate, when it was impending over us, and exulting over us as already overcome. In fine, his object was, “that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage,” (Heb. 2:14, 15). This is the first fruit which his death produced to us. Another is, that by fellowship with him he mortifies our earthly members that they may
441not afterwards exert themselves in action, and kill the old man, that he may not hereafter be in vigour and bring forth fruit. An effect of his burials moreover is that we as his fellows are buried to sin. For when the Apostle says, that we are ingrafted into the likeness of Christ’s deaths and that we are buried with him unto sin, that by his cross the world is crucified unto us and we unto the world, and that we are dead with him, he not only exhorts us to manifest an example of his death, but declares that there is an efficacy in it which should appear in all Christians, if they would not render his death unfruitful and useless. Accordingly in the death and burial of Christ a twofold blessing is set before us—viz. deliverance from death, to which we were enslaved, and the mortification of our flesh (Rom. 6:5; Gal. 2:19, 6:14; Col. 3:3). Institutes 2.16.7 (also see 3-4).
Here’s how TFT unpacks this on Calvin vis-a’-vis Rutherford:
Rutherford’s faithfulness to the Gospel message could be stronger than his logic — Christ clothed with the Gospel is greater than the covenant! Thus, as we have noted, in his famous Communion Sermons where his understanding of the atonement was governed by the New Covenant in Christ’s Body and Blood, and not so much by federal theology, Rutherford could write: ‘We are said in Scripture ‘to be reconciled unto God’ and not God to be reconciled unto us. His love is everlasting . . . so that sin could not change God’s mind.’ That was a very significant point for Rutherford to make in tune with the teaching of John Calvin. However, he was not consistent for he followed Beza and the Synod of Dort [sic] rather than Calvin who rejected the proposition of Alexander of Hales that Christ suffered sufficiently for all, but efficaciously only for the elect. For Rutherford, as for the Westminster Confession, the atoning satisfaction made by Christ was purchased from the Father, so that a sufficient act of redemption by Christ on the Cross could not but be necessitarian in its actuality and exclusive in its application — it was held that an all-sufficient atonement meant that every one would actually and necessarily be saved, which conflicted with Rutherford’s strict notion of limited election. (Thomas F. Torrance, “Scottish Theology,” 107)
According to TFT, Rutherford was in conflict with himself (at points he was more committed to scripture in the Evangel than he was to the strict logico-causal thought that limited atonement requires and sprung from).
Calvin on the other hand believed that people’s rejection of grace was per accidens, which is exactly what one would expect given his view of the real sufficiency of the atonement (not limited to some) and his thinking on the “Mystical Union” is also important here (which Rutherford also agrees with, but also is inconsistent with given his Federalism).
It is the Evangelical Calvinist who stands closer to Calvin on these points; than it is the Federalist, I would suggest.
September 30, 2009 at 8:01 am
Hi Doug,
I do love Calvin, but isn’t his interpretation of Isaiah 53:1 at odds with Paul’s?
In Romans 10, Paul quotes Is 52:7 and then 53:1, before asking “Have they not all heard? Indeed they have…” (Rom 10:18)
The point is not the particular narrowness of the LORD’s revelation to Israel – it’s the particular hardness of Israel. Even the *nations* grasp it readily. See how Paul finishes Romans 10. See also the universal (‘ends of the earth’) context of Isaiah’s servant songs.
As for other verses, what about:
Acts 17:30
1 Tim 2:5-6
Heb 2:9
2 Pet 3:9
September 30, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Thank you, Glen,
Great point, sola scriptura is certainly the standard, all great passages! Your points on Israel are good!
September 30, 2009 at 8:14 am
Hi Glen
Perhaps it’s not Calvin’s finest piece of exegesis – I dunno, would need to consider it and your reading carefully. But my point here wasn’t to defend Calvin but simply to say that to anyone who has read Calvin on election it’s clear he’s not at all at odds with the Rutherford piece Bobby quoted above. Whether he’s right or wrong I just thought it was amusing that Bobby calls himself an evangelical Calvinist but then quoted these words – ‘Christ offers in the Gospel life to all, so that they believe, but God mindeth to bestow life on a few only’ – which are a clear articulation of Calvin’s doctrine of election and its relationship to the universal offer. So I guess I’m left unsure how Calvinist Bobby’s Calvinism is.
Doug
September 30, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Doug,
Don’t go to quick now. It would certainly be anachronistic to say that Calvin was Federal. Given his view of the real sufficiency of the atonement (vis-a-vis his view of Christ’s mediatorship), his starting point is certainly different than Federals (in the limited sufficiency). Calvin and EC’s actually agree quite closely.
See this post: https://theevangelicalcalvinist.wordpress.com/2009/09/26/reading-calvin-the-way-he-intended-calvin-and-the-calvinists-again/
Canlis makes great points on Calvin’s Unio Mystica, and is applicable to our discussion here.
September 30, 2009 at 8:38 am
How about II Corinthians 5:19
September 30, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Mike,
Right on. This certainly would fit what I’ve been saying on Calvin above; what Calvin says on himself (see the quote I provided above). He believed in the real sufficiency of the atonement; contra its limited sufficiency per Federal categories.
So when Rutherford, for example would read II Cor. 5.18-19:
“All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19. that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. . . .”
He would have to demure, mute it, and say: “that God was reconciling the ‘elect world’ to himself.”
But then this fundamentally denies the real sufficiency of Christ’s atonement. Calvin would reject this limited reading, as does the EC.
October 1, 2009 at 2:14 am
Well herein is part of the problem with Prof Torrance on Calvin and, dare I say it, much of your blog. Your reading of Calvin is too hasty, too (ironically?) driven by theological agendas.
If you look carefully at the relevant passage that you mention of De aeterna, notice that Calvin simply says that in this present context of arguing against Georgius ‘the common solution’ (of the sufficient/efficient distinction’ does not avail. Then he says ‘by this great absurdity the monk has sought applause in his own fraternity, but it has no weight with me.’ What is the ‘great absurdity’? Is it possible that the absurdity is NOT the distinction itself but that Georgius thinks it applies in this context? I think a close reading suggests that this is right.
However, it is then Calvin’s comments on 1 John 2.2 in his commentary which remove any doubt. Here is what he says:
‘But here the question may be asked as to how the sins of the whole world have been expiated. I pass over the dreams of the fanatics, who make this a reason to extend salvation to all the reprobate and even to Satan himself. Such a monstrous idea is not worth refuting. Those who want to avoid this absurdity have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world but effectively only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in schools. Although I allow the truth of this, I deny that it fits this passage.’
It seems clear that Calvin upholds a distinction which is at odds with your conception of Calvinism!
But furthermore, once you just read the next few paragraphs in De aeterna, you come across Calvin saying things like although reconciliation is offered to all it does not reach all. Why not? Because God discriminates among men in terms of whose heart is sealed with effectual reconciliation.
Now my point was – and is – simple. It is just nuts to think that Calvin is anywhere near at odds with the Rutherford lines you opened this post with: ‘Christ offers in the Gospel life to all, so that they believe, but God mindeth to bestow life on a few only’ – well, perhaps Calvin might not have said ‘few’! – but he would have said ‘some’ or ‘elect’ or ‘not all.’ I have not suggested anywhere that Calvin is federal – that would be anachronistic. I am just pointing out that he is not at odds with Rutherford ON THIS POINT. Personally, I don’t care for either of them on this. I’m a universalist, but just ‘cos I don’t like hell doesn’t mean I don’t like history … and I think you should too.
October 1, 2009 at 3:14 am
How did a universalist get on here 😉 ?
I placed ‘EC’ at odds with Rutherford, because Rutherford was Federal in orientation; and what I am calling ‘EC’ is not. This would be the same for Calvin juxtaposed with Ruth.
To say that Calvin would approve of Ruth. sentiment, may or may not be true; but I think the question that has to be answered before that, is if Calvin would’ve ever gotten past Rutherford’s Federalism to get to that question in the first place.
As far as Rutherford and Calvin, Calvin says this on II Cor 2.15 in his commentary:
The term odor is very emphatic. “Such is the influence of the Gospel in both respects, that it either quickens or kills, not merely by its taste, but by its very smell. Whatever it may be, it is never preached in vain, but has invariably an effect, either for life, or for death.” “We are the savor of death unto death. But it is asked, how this accords with the nature of the Gospel, which we shall find him, a little afterwards, calling the ministry of life? (2 Corinthians 3:6.) The answer is easy: The Gospel is preached for salvation: this is what properly belongs to it; but believers alone are partakers of that salvation. In the mean time, its being an occasion of condemnation to unbelievers — that arises from their own fault. Thus Christ came not into the world to condemn the world,(John 3:17,) for what need was there of this, inasmuch as without him we are all condemned? Yet he sends his apostles to bind, as well as to loose, and to retain sins, as well as remit them. (Matthew 18:18; John 20:23.) He is the light of the world, (John 8:12,) but he blinds unbelievers. (John 9:39.) He is a Rock, for a foundation, but he is also to many a stone of stumbling. 347347 “De scandale et achoppement;” — “Of offense and stumbling.” (Isaiah 8:14.) We must always, therefore, distinguish between the proper office of the Gospel, — “The proper and natural office of the Gospel.” and the accidental one (so to speak) which must be imputed to the depravity of mankind, to which it is owing, that life to them is turned into death.
How this would be fitted to Rutherford’s view of decretal determinism would be questionable; if we in fact tried. This was TFT’s point on per accidens, which I alluded to above, per Calvin.
Maybe I overstated, relied to heavy on TFT on Calvin — at least in this regard (although I’m not quite ready to give that up, I’ll need to research a bit further); but my contention would still be — given Calvin’s notions on the ontological nature of the atonement, his universal atonement, his thinking on the unio mystica (as far as I understand it at the moment) — that Calvin’s themes and trajectory fit better with an ‘Evangelical’ understanding than the Federal scheme offers.
I certainly have much more reading to do, which I should be doing right now, but nooo, you had to come and make problems for me 😉 .
As far as theological agendas, of course I have one, so do you; as far as that biasing my ability to interpret Calvin, maybe a little, but you have one too — my bro (you’re a universalist after all). As far as history, it all requires reconstruction through interpretation; which I want to do accurately, like you, so thanks for the challenge . . . I’ll try to be more careful in the future.
Now, where was I, oh yeah, TFT was saying . . .
peace.
October 1, 2009 at 3:33 am
Bobby
You don’t get the way Calvin’s theology works.
You quote Calvin on 2 Cor. 2.15 ask: ‘How this would be fitted to Rutherford’s view of decretal determinism would be questionable’.
But why would it? For Calvin’s position is simply that of the compatibilism of the schools – the condemnation of unbelievers arises from their own fault (if we ask about the proximate cause of their condemnation) but also always from the decree (if we ask about the remote cause).
You often cite things Calvin says and then absolutise them against his system, rather than reading them in light of his system. Indeed, even in the 2 Cor. quote Calvin says that God ‘blinds unbelievers’ even as he says condemnation ‘is their own fault’.
‘It is true that the immediate cause of reprobation is the curse which we all inherit from Adam. Nevertheless, Paul withdraws us from this view, so that we may learn to rest in the bare and simple good pleasure of God, until he has established the doctrine that God has a sufficiently just cause for election and reprobation in his own will’ (Comm. Romans 9.11).
‘For all are not created in equal condition; rather eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others. Therefore, as any man has been created to one or other of these ends, we speak of him as predestined to life or to death’ (Institutes, 3.21.5).
October 1, 2009 at 3:47 am
Doug,
I’m always open for learning, so thanks.
What do you think, do you think Calvin was a “Calvinist?” And beyond that, what do you think of Muller’s thesis on Calvin and the Calvinists?
October 1, 2009 at 3:48 am
One more question:
What do you appreciate most, if anything, about TFT’s work?
October 1, 2009 at 3:51 am
Well I’ve already told you what I think on the Calvinist issue (Kenneth), discussed Muller’s thesis a little (Dave), and so I think my time here is over (Doug).
C’mon, you can work me out.
You should remember …
pax
October 1, 2009 at 11:41 am
Doug, Kenneth, Dave,
You hold that Calvin forwarded a limited atonement, then? And further, that his view would fit into the schematized articulation presented by folks like Turretin, Vermigli, even closer, Olevianus?
This is what Muller holds, and like I said, with what I do know of Calvin; this is anachronistic.
You said:
I have not suggested anywhere that Calvin is federal – that would be anachronistic
Muller implies, given his continuous view, that Calvin indeed would have been ‘Federal.’ If you accept Muller’s thesis, then you contradict yourself.
And are you saying that Calvin’s view of election is not christologically conditioned, as TFT might say, but instead that it turns on the decrees? In your Comm. Rom. 9.11 quote, it says: until he has established the doctrine that God has a sufficiently just cause for election and reprobation in his own will’ . . . . What in Calvin’s theology, from your perspective, would you suggest is the ‘just cause for election and reprobation’? Is the ground in the double decree, itself, for Calvin; or does it find basis through something more like the Unio Mystica? Is the ‘just cause’, for Calvin, pivoted upon and from Christ Himself?
October 2, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Well, if I can chip in with your erstwhile mysterious interlocutor … here’s my tuppence.
You (Bobby) ask K.D.D:
In your Comm. Rom. 9.11 quote, it says: ‘until he has established the doctrine that God has a sufficiently just cause for election and reprobation in his own will’ . . . . What in Calvin’s theology, from your perspective, would you suggest is the ‘just cause for election and reprobation’?
Now maybe it’s just me and the way I was taught to read a text at school but can anyone else see that in the text you quote the answer to the question you ask is there in black and white. It is – wait for it – ‘his own will.’
You seem to be aware that this is what Calvin says, but because you have been reading Calvin through Torrance you are finding it hard to accept that although this is what Calvin says, it is also what Calvin means – and this is because Torrance was reading Calvin through Barth and so hoping that what Calvin said isn’t what Calvin meant. And so here is the irony because when Barth read Calvin he was, on the whole (and there are some blips) very good at saying this is what Calvin said and because he said this it is also what he means.
Sorry – where was I? Oh yes. You were saying: when Calvin says that the just cause for election and reprobation is his own divine will does he mean the double decree or is the just cause pivoted upon and from Christ himself? I mean, it’s hard to spell T. F. Torrance in any other letters but that sentence of yours is about as good as I’ve seen.
So, here is my question to you: please can you show me where in Calvin the just cause for election and reprobation pivots upon Christ himself?
BG
October 2, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Hey BG (same initials, great),
You’ve got blog savvy down, nice.
I’m really not as interested in fighting for Calvin as Doug seems to think I need to be. Like I said in the post “Laying Claim to Calvin,” EC is picking up on themes that were provided by Calvin; BUT developed in the “Evangelical” ways we see evinced in the Scottish Theologians that TFT highlights (like Robert Leighton or Hugh Binning, for example). This is akin to the way Federal guys like Perkins and Ames developed Calvin . . . both trajectories are available.
EC is a constructive endeavor. Did TF read Calvin with his own colored glasses? Sure, not shy about that . . . but then again so have the Federal Calvinists (I don’t think either trajectory has the sole angle on the person, John Calvin).
As far as your question. Let me check my notes, and I’ll get back to you. Either here, but most likely in a post in the future.
peace.
PS Barth and Torrance are severely distinct, yet inseparably related; just ask the Barthians.
October 2, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Yes, but I am Big G and you are Little G – no? My beard is bigger. Good. We got that clear.
No, I am saying your trajectory is wrong. I am not saying there are 2 schools on Calvin, federal and evangelical, and despite your politeness, neither really are you when it comes down to it. Sure, both have connections to Calvin, but only one really counts as a fully-orbed consistent development of his thought.
So let’s go to it. You show me why your Growian/Torrancian/Habetsian readings of Calvin (hey, you heard it here first folks!) constitute a whole trajectory of thought outwards from Calvin’s theology that is a) faithful to Calvin and b) fundamentally at odds with federalism and I will show you why when you do a) you cannot therefore be at odds with federalism properly understood and when you do b) I will show you why in being at odds with federalism you are at odds with Calvin properly understood and when you do a) and b) together I will try to show how you are right on b) but wrong on a). You can’t ask fairer than dat. That’s bona fide lip smackin’ good, ain’t it and it’s right here on your blog and you don’t have to pay for it.
Let’s start where I laid it down thick last time like your mama used to do when you were a kid: show me where Calvin has material which leads you to even ask if the ‘just cause’ of election and reprobation is grounded in or pivots upon the Unio mystica. And while you’re at you can tell me how to do italics on this here thang.
BG
October 2, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Well, my facial here grows, so 😉 . . . and unless you derive your strength from your facial hair, well . . . (Samson) Let me guess, you’re 5’3”, I hear little man coming through 🙂
P1. No, I really am saying there is more than one trajectory available in the Calvinist stream. I would just counter-assert at this point.
P2. I’m working on something, with some others, that will surely demonstrate what you are desirous of (we’ll just call it point c). Smack talk is fitting for the blog format, you’re fitting right in.
P3. Yeah, like I said, though, let me check my notes — they’re over on my desk (and I’m lazy 😉 ) — I’ll get to it.
For italics go: [em] before the word or words you want italicized, and [/em] after those words . . but instead of using brackets around the ’em’s’, use the right and left “carrots” “lesser/greater” symbols (uh, I don’t know what to call them); the ones that are on the same keys as the comma and period 🙂 .
Growian, nice, that appeals to my vanity 🙂 .