And now there is another reason we must extend this teaching a bit further. It is, as I have already said, that, seeing that men are created in the image of God and that their souls have been redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ, we must try in every way available to us to draw them to the knowledge of the gospel. First, we try to reach them through gentleness and kindness. But have we determined whether men can be brought into obedience unto God in this way? Since we see that there is such hardness and rebellion in them that they cannot be won in this way, it is no longer a matter of using gentle tactics. Rather, we must storm out against them, as the Holy Spirit shows us here. And because of that, we understand why many people think they would like for us to refrain from all harshness when we speak of the pope and his ilk, calling him an antichrist, a murderer, a robber who kills poor souls, a thief who pillages God’s honour.John Calvin, Sermons on Acts 1-7, Sermon 41, Acts 7:51, p., 593.
And:
For the faithless have no profit at all by the death and passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, but rather are so much the more damnable, because they reject the means that God had ordained: and their unthankfulness shall be so much the more grievously punished, because they have trodden under foot the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was the ransom for their souls.
John Calvin, Sermons on Galatians, Sermon 2, 1:3-5, p., 39/27
And:
It follows, moreover, that the poor souls whom our Lord Jesus Christ has bought so dearly that he did not spare himself to save them, perish and are given into Satan’s possession.
John Calvin, Sermons on Ephesians, 5:11-14, p., 525.
There’s a whole bunch more over here at David’s Calvin and Calvinism blog. That entire blog is loaded with great resources.
Even if you say Calvin’s just speaking pastorally, I have to ask, do you speak this way?
Why not?
No, these are Arminian passages in Calvin . . . so the TR says. I’m contunually amazed at how the TR crew in the “in churches” despise Shepherd and the places like this in Calvin that don’t fit the system. We should do as Calvin–affirm the covenant: what it says about our election and our obedience.
Hi Steven,
I wonder what you mean by “speaking pastorally.” Some, like Rainbow, have sought to argue that Calvin is speaking from a judgment of charity, as if he is speaking about Christians that he assumes to be redeemed. That will not work. Even the one quote above that you provided negates that argument. He speaks of drawing “them to the knowledge of the gospel.” He’s speaking about a group of people that he reckons to be lost, yet he does not hesitate to say they are:
1) created in God’s image
and
2) redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ
Right.
The judgment of charity is tricky, and if it just means something like presumption, then it is worthless. Indeed, as soon as we admit that it is “only” a judgment of charity and may in fact not be true, then we have taken the gospel out of the gospel.
There are analogous (and analogously difficult) theological instances in Zanchi, where he says all men should consider themselves elect. Is this a judgment of charity or a duty derived from the free offer?
“Sacramental speech” is also used, where, by the communicatio idiomatum, baptism is said to regenerate, even in cases where the recipient will turn out to be unregenerate.
You guys know the history of atonement language better than I, of course, and so perhaps you’ve got some systematic suggestions.
What I also find interesting is that Rainbow seems to think that Calvin, as a pastor, said that we should love all and wish all to be saved, even if it is not theologically true (for Calvin) that God loves all and wishes all to be saved. See The Will of God and The Cross, p. 171. Not only do I think that is an absolutely absurd take on Calvin, but I don’t see how that “pastoral speech” strategy could be used to negate the universal redemption statements in Calvin. If it is not “theologically true” that Christ redeemed all of those lost that Calvin is talking about, then is it also theologically untrue that they are created in God’s image?
There’s no escaping the force of these quotes.
If one really desires to know what Calvin believed about the extent of the atonement, one should read from a text in which he directly addresses that topic. In his comments on 1 John 2:2, he made it abundantly clear that he did not believe that Christ’s propitiation extends to the reprobate.
So, Calvin was moderate Calvinist rather than a disciple of, say, John Owen. Should anyone find this surprising? Calvinism is a diverse tradition and all of this seems within the bounds of what came to be Dort’s teaching on the universal and infinite sufficiency of Christ’s work.
In my opinion, the best treatment of this topic is found in Roger Nicole’s article, “John Calvin’s View of the Extent of the Atonement.”
Oh come on, just give the link a *try.*
Calvin’s comments on 1 John 2:2 actually show that he doesn’t believe “propitiation” and “salvation” are fully synonymous.
Ironically, that exegesis demonstrates that he is not on the same page as Nicole and others.
But I’m just the messenger on this one. Slog through the 50 pages or so over at C&C, and then you’ll have a better grasp.
Garver,
Yes.
Steven,
What makes you think I didn’t give the link a try? Upon checking it out I discovered it to be the work of Steven Costley, a retired lawyer whose work I became familiar with sometime last year. He has been pursuing his neo-Amyraldian hobby-horse for the past year and a half on his “Controversial Calvinism” blog, following in the footsteps of R.T. Kendall and others whose question-begging cherry-picking of Calvin quotes has been more-than-sufficiently answered long ago by Nicole and others, in my opinion and contra yours.
As for your take on Calvin’s commentary on 1 John 2:2: who ever said that “propitiation” and “salvation” are fully synonymous? That’s a red herring. The real issue is whether they are co-extensive, and in his comment on 1 John 2:2 Calvin is clear that they are.
Ron,
The blog is David’s, not Steve’s. If you think the post I linked to is “cherry-picking,” then all I can say is that there are quite a bit of cherries there indeed. Calvin must have been a total schizophrenic if seen through the lens of such a paradigm.
Your reading of Calvin on 1 John2:2 is also deficient. He agrees that the sins of the world have been expiated. That’s a given in order for his question of “How have they been expiated?” to work. The expiation is agreed on. The question of salvation comes next. He’s negation of the reprobate includes Satan, so you need to ask “Who is he talking about?” Who, in Calvin’s opinion, is extending “salvation” to the reprobate and even the Devil?
Calvin goes on to grant the sufficient/efficient distinction, which is what I believe. He then adds that in the context of 1 John, the object of reference is the Church.
Once you read through the quotes listed, you will see how Calvin’s theology of the Church functions, and how a person comes to be reprobate.
Again, it is all there to be read, and you might consider that those of us on the other side have actually spent some time on this topic as well.
My research on Dort is wholly consistent with this reading of Calvin, as is the writings of Pareus and the University of Heidelberg.
Steven…
lol…I love the cherry picking bit…
Hey…Jesus spoke on hell…wait…am I cherry picking Christ?
The cherry-picking might have some credibility (it would still be a weak response of course) if the historical context supported high-Calvinism. Given the writings of Luther, Zwingli, Bullinger, and Vermigli, however, we should be expecting the moderate position. When we find it, we are not surprised.
Also, consider the moderates at Heidelberg. Ursinus, Pareus, Kimodoncius- these were significant thinkers.
The British delegation at Dort and the Bremenese also held to this position.
Now, add the 19th century Americans- Dabney, Hodge, and Shedd- why this position is downright normal now.
Calvin is consistent and makes perfect sense in the moderate scheme. He is completely incomprehensible in the high scheme, with a contradictory ecclesiology and deceitful pastoral speech.
You tell me what makes more sense.
What I’d like to see in these discussions is:
[1] A careful definition of what is meant by “Amyraldianism” (and its variants).
The term “Amyraldian” is used to mean a variety of different views, some of which may have been Amyraut’s and others not (and there’s not even consensus on what Amyraut’s views in fact were). “Amyraldian” has ofttimes become a term of disapprobation to dismiss any view that has a less restrictive view of the atonement than one’s own.
Thus, there were many figures and texts in the 17th century that embraced moderate Calvinism (e.g., a good number of the Westminster Assembly, the English Annotations on the Bible), but who would have quickly distinguished themselves from what they understood as “Amyraldianism.”
As Turretin sums up his objections to Amyraldianism, his two primary differences are that [a] he rejects the notion that the New Covenant is made with each and every member of the human race and [b] he rejects the notion that actual sufficient grace is extended to each and every person.
Of course, these views, rejected by Turretin, may not actually be Amyraut’s own since Amyraut himself may not have been an Amyraldian (as that came to be understood) any more than, say, Nestiorius was a Nestorian (on some accounts). But the represent the sorts of problems that Reformed Orthodoxy had with (what they understood to be) Amyraut’s views.
[2] Following from [1], a decision to reject false dichotomies.
The assumption in discussions often seems to be that either one holds to Limited Atonement in the way that someone like Owen did or one is an “Amyraldian.” (I don’t mean to pick on Owen; he was hardly alone in his views, but he is probably the most well-known representative of his views, especially for contemporary audiences).
The fact is that there is a continuum of views within Reformed theology, from Owen’s on one end (or further along that extreme, Hyper-Calvinism of the Gill variety and its descendants) and what are understood to be Amyraut’s views on the other end (and it should not be forgotten that even Turretin, despite his differences, regarded Amyraut as “one of our divines” and as a distinguished and revered Reformed theologian).
On some reckonings, A.A. Hodge, Dabney, John Murray, and others would turn out to be Amyraldians since they reject the kind of view associated with Owen. The fact that many 16th through 19th century Reformed divines did not hold to the kind of “limited atonement” popularly understood by many today as “Calvinism” shows that R.T. Kendall “Calvin vs. the Calvinists” game buys into precisely the false dichotomies we should reject in order to have a fruitful discussion.
[3] A moratorium on any mention of Nicole’s well-known article on Calvin and the extent of the atonement.
It’s a dead horse. Generally everyone in these sorts of discussions has already read it. A lot of people don’t find it particularly persuasive in light of all the counter evidence and the fact that the texts Nicole adduces are less than unambiguous.
John Davenant did not agree with Amyraut on a few points. He wrote a treatise on his differences: http://wedgewords.wordpress.com/2007/12/17/davenant-is-not-an-amyraldian/
Davenant’s position is well represented in the Reformed tradition: http://wedgewords.wordpress.com/2008/02/05/davenant-and-calvinism/
So when I see Calvin espousing theology that is consistent with Davenant’s position, that lends credibility to the thesis that the moderate position is indeed Calvin’s.
Calvin is inconsistent at best in a high-Calvinist position and incoherent at worst. His sacramental theology is completely inconsistent, as are his definitions of faith and assurance.
He is perfectly consistent in the moderate position.
Therefore, it is more reasonable to believe that he is a moderate than a high-Calvinist.
Ron Henzel writes: “If one really desires to know what Calvin believed about the extent of the atonement, one should read from a text in which he directly addresses that topic. In his comments on 1 John 2:2, he made it abundantly clear that he did not believe that Christ’s propitiation extends to the reprobate”.
This is rather a condescending and equivocating line of argumentation, perhaps offered in service of protecting TULIP petal 3, I’m not sure.
First, “if one really desires to know what Calvin believed….” So, this is to presume Steven doesn’t?
Notice also the sleight of hand viz. rendering “atonement” and “propitiation” synonymous, which is an UNPROVEN assumption imputed to Calvin in order to dismiss the several passages Steven has referenced.
That’s some weak ass break-dancing.
Try reading the I John 2:2 exegesis (and the Romans 5 exegesis for the matter!) in light of the other passages cited by Steven rather than the alternative order posed by Ron, which seeks to utilize one text as a sieve for the other 4-5-6-7, etc.
And, while we’re on atonement passages, it is not uncommon for Paul to speak of an objective accopmlishment which yet must be realized subjectively on the part of his hearers (“God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them – Be ye therefore reconciled to God” II Cor. 5:20). I would suggest that the I John 2:2 passage could credibly understood in this light, for even in the case of the elect, it would be admitted by most of the staunchest of TR commandos that God’s wrath is not removed from the elect sinner until there is a subjective appropriation viz. repentance and faith (Kuyper and Gill would be exceptions to this, as I understand their advocacy of eternal justification).
Of course, this is moot if we take the position that the church needed 17th century Presbyterian and Reformed scholasticism to develop a wonderfully complete “theory” of the atonement and its extent, not really culled in any comprehensive sense from Scripture, but rather, derived from various logical inferences deemed necessary to “hedge” the grace of God, in much the same way that other Calvinists “hedge” several free-offer passages lest they create the impression of some kind of inter-trinitarian conflict (Gerstner, Gill, Hoeksema, and others).
It seems to me that our Lord had some choice words for religionists who obsessed over hedging this or that aspect of the Word of God. Not all, but some, “high” Calvinists can resemble such, in ultimately presenting a niggardly “gospel” authored by a God who appears reluctant to save people.
Steven,
Your question(s), “do you speak this way? Why not?,” is still relavent. Even those who say, like a mantra, “read Nicole…read Helm,” do not speak as Calvin spoke. In fact, they are careful NOT to speak that way.
Where is the Owenist who says things like this?
“And again, has not our Lord Jesus Christ redeemed men’s souls: true it is that the effect of his death comes not to the whole world: Nevertheless for as much as it is not in us to discern between the righteous and the sinners that go to destruction, but that Jesus Christ has suffered his death and passion as well for them as for us: therefore it behooves us to labour to bring every man to salvation that the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ made be available to them.” Calvin, Sermons on Job, p. 454.
“But how can such an imprecation be reconciled with the mildness of an apostle, who ought to wish that all should be saved, and that not a single person should perish? So far as men are concerned, I admit the force of this argument; for it is the will of God that we should seek the salvation of all men without exception, as Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world.” Calvin on Gal. 5:12
At this point, the “just read Nicole!” crowd is so invested in his cause that they cannot allow the alternative to be true. They realize what that entails. The dichotomy is now very strong. Either Nicole is right or he has been terribly wrong and sloppy, among others. The alternative viewpoint entails serious embarrassment, such that it cannot be allowed. It needs to be shouted down and caustically dismissed, much like the naturalists dismiss the intelligent design advocates in biology circles. Moderate Calvinists may often feel like William A. Dembski and Phillip E. Johnson in that respect, as they seek to establish the legitimacy of their theological paradigm.
Steven,
In my haste I confused the article to which you linked in your post with one by Steven Costley which David hosted on his blog, as for example, one finds here. The style and substance is so similar to the kind of stuff that Costley has been featuring I mistakenly thought that the article to which you pointed was another one by Costley instead of an original one by David. Me culpa.
Meanwhile, I stand by my other remarks. If you are impressed by the number of cherries the article picks, then you should also be impressed with the writings of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, which far outdoes this little article in selectively citing texts to disprove the deity of Christ and the Trinity. They have also argued that the biblical writers must be schizophrenic in order for Trinitarian interpreters to be correct.
As far as my reading of Calvin’s comments on 1 John 2:2 being “deficient”: let’s just say I find your dyslexic and leave it at that. While I’m glad that people such as yourself are trying to do research into the sources of the Reformation, I can only hope it becomes less agenda-driven and thus more objective as time goes on.
Pingback: once more with feeling » Interesting Calvinism thread
Let’s work through Calvin on 1 John 2:2 for a bit.
“And not for ours only He added this for the sake of amplifying, in order that the faithful might be assured that the expiation made by Christ, extends to all who by faith embrace the gospel.”
So we are talking about the extension of the expiation made by Christ. This made expiation extends to all who by faith embrace the gospel. The made expiation does not extend to those who do not embrace the gospel by faith.
“Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated?”
”
So, the sins of the whole word have been expiated, and we now ask how this is so.
“I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretense extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself. Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation.”
Now again, who is affirming this? Is it Luther? Is poor Zwingli saying that Satan is saved? No, I think someone else must be in view, someone who assumes that a worldwide expiation also necessitates worldwide salvation.
“They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools.”
So the “schools” have proposed the sufficient/efficient distinction. These are folks like Lombard and Aquinas.
“Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church.”
Now look carefully. Calvin agrees with the sufficient/efficient distinction in theory. It is theologically correct. However, he does not believe that this text is speaking to that point. Rather, John has the Church in mind.
“Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world. For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only true salvation of the world.”
And so now we have the conclusion that since John is addressing the Church, which Calvin defines as believers of course, that John does not have the Reprobate in mind.
But of course, the Reprobate- that is those not having faith- cannot embrace the gospel of the expiated sins. That is why it will not extend to them. It extends by being received.
When one reads Calvin on the objectivity of the gospel-offer, this is clear. The reprobate reject the grace offered.
This explanation is not possible in the high-Calvinist system because they understand salvation to be a necessary consequence of expiation. There is no intermediate concern or condition (the historical instrumentality of faith for instance), and thus they end up affirming the same *nature* of expiation as Calvin’s opponents, though differing on the number of persons included.
This explanation, however, is fully consistent with the moderate Calvinist position (which by the way, if we take Davenant to be a faithful representative of, is not the same as Amyraldianism or “neo-Amyraldianism”), which is what is supported by the 100+ quotes that are provided by the linked page.
Regarding cherry-picking.
I would like to know what does that mean exactly? Normally when I think of cherry-picking, I think of someone taking this cherry, but leaving that cherry. There is a process of selection involved.
So when I read the accusation one is cherry-picking Calvin, I get the impression one is being accused of selectively quoting Calvin. Now, Ron, if I am wrong as to your intent, please do correct me.
Let me assume I have understood the cherry-picking accusation correctly for now.
How would you prove it? What cherries would you pick? If you point to the Heshusius comment, it has already been listed and discussed in detail. If you point to Calvin’s point on 1 Jn 2:2 it too has been actually listed both occasions within the file.
The cherry-picking accusation seems to some us to be an unhelpful assertion.
Lets assume that Calvin was inconsistent. Lets assume that your two cherries have been correctly picked by you and incorrectly picked by us, for example, what then?
We have 2 cherries versus (approx) 150? What happens then? Why should one discount the approximate 150 cherries for the sake of 2? Or, why could not one say, when Calvin made those 2 comments, he was speaking inconsistently, and out of sync with his entire corpus and life-time of writing?
So we have two teams claiming Calvin by sourcing their ideas in two apparently diverse modes of thought in Calvin. At the least, that should give us something like a permissive parity: that is, our claim to Calvin should be just as valid as your claim. Right? Or else you would need to show us why your two cherries, and what other arguments you can supply, should be taken as so forceful as to negate or delimit or restrict our sources in Calvin. Do you have anything like that?
I mean, sometimes people say, “Well early on Calvin held to unlimited expiation, but later he rejected it and embraced limited expiation.” That’s one way to deal with the permissive parity problem. But we now know that that line is untenable. From his earliest days to his last, he was affirming an unlimited aspect of the expiation and redemption.
Or you would need to show how it is that all these quotations do not mean what they–to all intents and purposes–as saying what they appear to say.
So we need something from your side to refute the other team.
We can see, then, that there are actually a few alternative lines of thought open, rather than just asserting that the 2 cherries should interpretatively constrain and delimit the life-time of his writings?
However, we on our side are not left there. We can show why it is fairly probable that in one of your cherries he is not attempting to delimit the scope of the expiation: as Calvin says the blood-shedding of Christ is not for the wicked. He does not say not for the reprobate. If you want to take him literally, he is now saying Christ did not die for sinners. The irony is, that’s most likely what is going on here (Cf Rollock Those for whom Christ did not come to save
Thus, there is a good case for claiming that something else is going on for Calvin there.
And 1 John 2:2 is also very interesting in that Calvin right there affirms that Christ suffered for all. What he does not affirm is that the expiation is applied to all: as per Pighius and co. The universalism of Pighius was prevalent even into the later 15thC.
Anyway, I would just like to see some evidence that Calvin has been selectively cited by us. I totally agree with Joel on the moratorium of citing Nicole. Some of us are so non-plussed by such retorts. If one thinks that Nicole has supplied the definitive refutation, and given that we don’t see it, please put up for discussion his best argument(s) and let’s talk about it. What happens is that so many just do a sort of ‘drive-by’ comment, claiming we must read Nicole, but never tell us why Nicole’s arguments are to be granted.
Regarding Neo-Amyraldianism: Again some of us find that an unhelpful response. The theology being claimed, and argued to, predates Amyraut by a century–at least. Amyraut sought to integrate classic aspects on the expiation with the new emergent Federalist schemas. When he originally stressed that Christ died for all, he later clarified that as referring to the sufficiency of the expiation. He affirmed over and over that Christ died effectually and especially for the elect. Turretin’s critique of Amyraut also misses the point and misrepresents the man. At times Turretin defines Amyraut’s position correctly, but then responds to it as if it is identical to the Arminian position. Overall, Turretin’s replies are off-target and irrelevant in our opinion. The term “amyraldianism” is just a shibboleth used to scare away good thinking. Absolutely nothing argued for in the Calvin file hinges on Amyraut in anyway. Amyraut might never have existed and nothing from Calvin, from Bullinger, from Luther, from Zwingli, from Vermigli, and many others, changes.
To conclude: in all the above, I don’t think that we, for our part, are being unreasonable in asking you and others to take your claims further, beyond mere assertions.
Steve: I will take the liberty of posting this at the other blog, but delete s personal names.
David
I am always quite astounded when I read, in the midst of discussions such as this one, insinuations and assertions from one side that the interpretation/presentation of the other side is conditioned and driven by a certain “agenda,” and that those standing on that (wrong) side are therefore not capable of an objective treatment of the facts; while the side on which the one making such accusations stands is of course assumed to be entirely objective, and devoid of any agenda.
Give me a break.
My agenda is to make Calvin’s thought internally consistent.
Steven,
You seem to come to the heart of your argument about Calvin’s exposition of 1 John 2:2 here:
And yet you seem oblivious to the fact that by your very words here you limit the extent of the atonement to the elect, just as Calvin does in his exposition. I think I may have a clue as to why that is.
You wrote:
I’m afraid that in my opinion this argument is without merit, primarily because I don’t believe your conclusion follows logically from your premises. But there’s something that I think is even more important here: this is not ultimately an argument about the extent of the atonement, but about its design, and it always has been. Was the atonement designed to save everybody, or only the elect? Everyone except the most extreme universalist in some way limits the atonement. Thus, among non-universalists, the argument is really about design rather than extent.
Even you admit that the atonement is limited in its extent when you say that “it will not extend to them.” Now the “high-Calvinist system” as you call it (which is simply consistent Calvinism) recognizes that any time we speak of a limit on the extent of the atonement, we are saying that there is a limit on the sins for which atonement has ultimately been made, which at the same time does not limit the sufficiency of the atonement, nor does it impinge upon the free offer of its benefits to the non-elect on the condition of faith. Ultimately there will be people in hell, and they will be there because, as you yourself say, the benefits of Christ’s atonement did not extend to them. Now the question is: did the benefits of Christ’s atonement not extend to the reprobate in spite of what it was designed to accomplish, or because of what it was designed to accomplish. Or: for whose sins was atonement originally (as opposed to ultimately) made, to be applied later on the basis of faith?
This is where Calvin’s limitation of the meaning of the phrase “for the whole world” in 1 John 2:2 comes in. He specifically informs us that it does not refer to every single person in the world without exception, but rather “it designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world.” And since the clause in 1 John on which Calvin is commenting, “for the whole world” (περὶ ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου) expresses the purpose for which Christ’s propitiation is designed (something he could hardly have missed!), with those same words Calvin thus limits both the extent and design of the atonement. Although it is obviously anachronistic to suggest that Calvin was dealing with the exact same arguments later brought forth by the Remonstrants for universal atonement, we can nevertheless see the trajectory of his thought, as Nicole points out for example, in his “Traité de la predestination, in which the design of the atonement and God’s elective purpose are seen as inextricably related.”
Meanwhile, in your system, the extent of the atonement is not dependent on how God designed it, but how people respond to it. This is evident when you write:
But as I and many others read Calvin, it both extends and is received by God’s sovereign purpose and power as wrought by His Spirit.
David,
You wrote:
I was not actually thinking of cherry picking in this way. Any time we quote anyone it involves a process of selection. Perhaps I could have picked a better phrase.
My actual complaint is similar to the one voiced by Nicole:
Oops! The last two sentences in my previous post are my own, and not Nicole’s.
Steven, I’m not so sure Calvin is internally consistent, though. He wrote over several years’ time, and his knowledge of the Scriptures certainly changed over time. There is definitely an “early” and “late” Calvin, but I’m not sure what those differences are. Just throwing that out there.
As far as the extent of expiation, the Bible gives us some handy clues…
The blood was on the altar for the camp of Israel and the ashes falling to the ground were taken outside of the camp for the rest of the world. Dordt says the same thing, really, by saying there was an infinite worth of Christ’s sacrifice.
The question is not whether or not the atonement is universal or particular simpliciter, but whether the atonement might, within the design of God, be universal in some respects and particular in others.
Moderate Calvinism is not a variety of Arminianism, constraining God’s purposes by human freedom. Moderate Calvinism of course sees the design of the atonement and God’s elective purposes as inextricably related.
The question is whether God’s purposes in Christ’s atoning work extends in some respects (and not in its ultimately saving efficacy) beyond the elect.
Jonathan wrote:
And then Steven wrote:
Jonathan,
It’s this attitude I’m responding to—the attitude that says, “I have no agenda other than to be objective.” Or as Steve put it in comment 38 “I think we’re just going to have to reckon with Calvin’s system.” In other words: “The only reasonable conclusion is the one I have provided.”
As I scroll through all the posts here it seems to me that this entire blog is agenda-driven. I will say this, however: it does make it interesting, and I suppose in a way Steve is doing us a service. At least now I know where to come to find the thinking of a current fan of Mercersburg theology.
Note: the “comment 38″ to which I referred above is attached to Steve’s post titled, “Calvin on Unrepentant Covenant Children.”
Ron, everyone believes that the design of the atonement and God’s elective purposes are inextricably related. That has never been at issue. Given traditional theology proper, all of God’s attributes are inextricably related.
You also say that my view, which you haven’t taken the time to ask for, makes the atonement dependent on the creature and *not* God’s intent.
What an amazing charge. One would think that I were an Open Theist.
Well, I’m not and this sort of assertion exposes the blinders which high-Calvinists wear. There are only 2 options in their mind, God’s intent or genuine human responsibility. One must give to the other. Both cannot be really true.
You’ll forgive me for not accepting that dilemma.
Let us address this one concern of intent though:
“But there’s something that I think is even more important here: this is not ultimately an argument about the extent of the atonement, but about its design, and it always has been. Was the atonement designed to save everybody, or only the elect? Everyone except the most extreme universalist in some way limits the atonement. Thus, among non-universalists, the argument is really about design rather than extent.”
1st) You continue to collapse expiation of sins into salvation. This is an assumption that is illicit and rejected by moderate Calvinists. You can see the 19th century Americans for clear discussions on this matter. As Dabney says, redemption is limited, expiation is not.
2nd) Is it not possible for God’s design to include multiple purposes? Could it not be the case that God wished to effect a definite atonement for the elect, in which they would be granted the Holy Spirit and empowered to fulfill the conditions of faith and repentance, thereby applying the content of the atonement to them, all the while also wishing to effect a general atonement offered to all humanity?
3rd) Could it not be the case that you have misunderstood, due to a lack of historical grounding and an overzealous desire to win arguments, the historical background of Calvin’s thought?
Again, you state, “[the atonement] both extends and is received by God’s sovereign purpose and power as wrought by His Spirit.”
Yes, of course, but again, no one in this discussion disputes this, and if I may let you in on a little secret, no good Roman Catholic or Lutheran disputes this either. How hard is it to say that the atonement has multiple purposes?
Why does your position lack a broader understanding of God’s intent and the conditional application? Why is it?
This becomes very practical too. It impacts our doctrine of the Church. Calvin has left us a lot of cherries to pick regarding those for whom Christ died perishing and going to hell. He even applies this to ministers of the gospel stating:
Now, again, my challenge is this: Why don’t you speak this way? Why don’t you say that negligent ministers are responsible for making the redemption gotten by Jesus of no effect due to their sinful refusal to properly engage their congregation?
This is a very practical point. Calvin is using the fact that Jesus redeemed people as a ground on which ministers must do their duty. He then goes further and applies this to real-time people.
My position can tell any sinner that Christ died for them.
The high Calvinist position cannot.
My position can say that the Lord’s Supper is the body of the Lord broken and the blood of the Lord poured out for the remission of sins, and then it can say “For you” as the elements are given to real people.
The high Calvinist position cannot.
My position makes sense of Calvin’s system including his theology proper, his soteriology, and his ecclesiology.
The high Calvinist position cannot.
My position makes sense of Calvin’s immediate context, his predecessors and colleagues.
The high Calvinist position cannot.
I’m not sure Mercersburg understood the diversity among Dortian Calvinism at all. Ron is a fallacy machine, throwing out guilt by association at every turn.
Mercersburg is a different animal entirely, and I would never cite them for this discussion.
The quotes, which Ron has failed to even attempt to reckon with, all stand on their own. Calvin teaches a broader view of the atonement, with multiple purposes and a non-limited expiation of sins, than do the high-Calvinists.
This affects other parts of his theology, especially the role of the pastor and the historical means of grace.
Ron is correct that I’m attempting to understand Calvin’s larger system of thought. This is Ron’s big problem. He doesn’t understand the system at large. It is he who actually engages in the cherry-picking, putting 2 cherries up against 100. He attempts to overcome this by citing Nicole, but the problem is that too much of the primary material is available. We don’t need Nicole to see it.
Shouldn’t someone eventually point out that Nicole is a Baptist. Helm is too, as I recall, and Helm has some really strange views when it comes to philosophy and metaphysics. He ends up punting Nicene trinitarian thought, denying that the personal names have real ontological value, and so I suspect he is not one to go to to understand who medieval and postmedieval thought works.
Could it not be the case that these gentlemen have larger issues which prevent them from discerning Calvin’s system of theology? Could it not be the case that these men are affected by modern concerns, and that they themselves fail to chart the line of continuity between Calvin and medieval thought?
I think that all of these are plausible issues to consider, and if the practice evidences the belief, one need only compare Calvin’s liturgy to the practice of even the best Reformed Baptists.
Why do they look so different?
Why are the systems of thought so different?
Again, my claim is that Calvin is a “moderate Calvinist” (anachronistic terminology to be sure.) He is consistent with Luther, Zwingli, Bullinger, Vermigli, Ursinus, and many more when it comes to the nature of expiation.
Expiation is not the same thing as reconciliation or “salvation.” High Calvinists collapse these categories into one another, asserting that to expiate sins just is to accomplish reconciliation and vice versa, thereby disallowing the moderate position.
In fact, they don’t even consider the option, and in this case, they are more like Calvin’s opponents (Pighius) than they are like Calvin.
The history is there. The theology is there. The words are there.
I’m tired of scary words “Neo-Amyraldian” and pleas to select Reformed Baptist authorities.
David’s post has 100+ citations. They are contextualized. They are not drive-bys. If you search his blog, you’ll find many other posts on secondary sources, as well as the larger issue of systematic thought.
If you search my own blog, you will find research on Dort, the university of Heidelberg, and the American moderate Calvinists.
Hey Ron,
Your post to Steven before your reply to me is telling. There is a lot there. There are theological issues and then there are historical issues. What the danger is, is treating Calvin as to what theological paradigm he should have taught–given one’s assumptions today–and not treating Calvin as an historical text.
You responded by moving into the first mode. You responded by speaking to what God properly designs and intends by the atonement. I am not interested in that right now. I will grant that you believe that. But what I am challenging is, did Calvin believe what you believe? I am saying no, and here is why….
So I will pass on proving theology right now. Again, I want to discuss Calvin as a historical text, using standard hermeneutics etc to figure what he believed, not what I think or want him to believe.
Now to your reply to me specifically.
You wrote:
I was not actually thinking of cherry picking in this way. Any time we quote anyone it involves a process of selection. Perhaps I could have picked a better phrase.
David: that is exactly what I am saying. But there was an edge to what you said in the comment. It did carry the implicit charge of leaving out relevant material. The implicit idea was that we are picking out one side of the Calvin corpus cherries that support our claims. I would say that is not true. And what is more, to correct us, all one need to do is show us the ‘other side’ of Calvin. But that is not happening. It never happens. When Heshusius is brought up, we respond, but then all we get back is silence. 1 John 2:2 is thrown up, we respond. Rarely do we see folk from the other team try to engage in serious textual and theological analysis of what Calvin says on 1 Jn 2:2 in his Commentary and Tract. We are trying to get people to move beyond the quickie-retorts to thoughtful analysis. But it never happens.
You say: My actual complaint is similar to the one voiced by Nicole:
One of the earliest writers to claim that Calvin espoused universal atonement was Moyse Amyraut (1596–1664) who in his Eschantillon de la doctrine de Calvin touchant la predestination quoted certain passages from Calvin’s commentaries in support of his own position on universal atonement. Amyraut’s friend and supporter Jean Daillé (1594–1670) later published some 43 pages of excerpts from Calvin’s works which he deemed in line with universal grace. A number of these excerpts relate to the design of the atonement, but it is really amazing to observe how most of these quotations are lacking in cogency with respect to the precise status questionis. Some, indeed, appear actually counterproductive, especially if replaced in their original context.
David: Well what to say to that? I will focus on one point. Nicole tends to simply things too much. What Amyraut and Daille and others sought to establish was a much wider package of ideas which included the ideas of conditional will (legislative decree), the appointment of Christ to the world, the whole world, the volition behind the grace of God to all men, as well as the extent of the expiation and redemption, all from Calvin’s teachings, and other early Reformers’ teachings. Hence they were quite broad in their quotations. Nicole’s accusation, which has been echoed by folk like Iain Murray, is that citing Calvin on common grace or the free offer does not prove that Calvin held to an unlimited expiation and redemption. Okay, lets grant that.
But now, we are not doing that. The file compiled at the C&C blog is very specific. It seeks to display all of Calvin’s direct and specific comments on the extent of the expiation, redemption, and mission of Christ to the world, in distinct categories. It is not the case that we are citing Calvin on, say, ‘universal grace’ to prove a position from him on the extent of the redemption. We’ve cited Calvin on common grace, general love, the free offer, by doing the same exact thing: finding comments from Calvin which speak directly to those respective issues. You can scope out the meta-links page to see this.
Therefore, being sensitive to Nicole’s charge we have sought to avoid it completely. My invitation to you: if you can, show us where one of the quotations is out of both theological and textual context, we will remove it from the list. Show us a quotation that really is liable to Nicole’s charge as cited by you? We will remove it from the file.
But then we want you to deal with the balance which speak directly to Calvin’s view of the extent of the expiation and redemption.
You say: In short: I think you’re just reinventing Amyraut’s and Daillé’s flat tire. There is nothing new here.
David: I know better, but I am still hoping. Unless there is some movement forward, this will be my last to you.
Thanks Steven,
David
Ron (29),
I wasn’t denying that Steven has an agenda. I was addressing the blindness that is involved in insinuating that one’s opponent is the only one with the agenda.
We all have our agendas. The question is whose agenda is most true to reality. But to act as though only one side has an agenda while the other side is merely offering a detatched, objective analysis of plain facts, is to betray a certain amount of either dishonesty or self-deception.
Steven,
You wrote in comment 32:
Let’s pause and take a deep breath here. This is becoming bizarre. I’m not saying it’s all your fault. Perhaps I should have simply been more
In my final paragraph in comment 29 I wrote:
Please note that in my first sentence the complete subject with modifiers is, “all the posts here.” My subject was neither “Dortian Calvinism” nor Mercerburg theology. I was no longer referring to our discussion about the atonement, nor was I trying to make any association between it and Mercersburg. I was talking about my recent survey of all the posts on this blog and, far from engaging in guilt by association, I was actually trying to say something positive: I really think the work you’ve done here provides interested individuals (of whom I am one) with a lot that is worthwhile to read, even if one disagrees with it. My only suggestion would be that you add links to your bibliographic references so that we can conveniently look up the books you cite on Amazon or some other vendor.
I’m miserably short of time here but—as for your reference to Dabney: not only does his misbegotten distinction between expiation and redemption create more problems than it solves, but Dabney is using it to solve a false problem. How you can put him on the same page with Hodge and Shedd on this score is beyond me. You say my “big problem” is that I don’t understand Calvin’s “system at large.” Right back at ya’ buddy! Not only do you not understand Calvin, you apparently don’t understand Hodge and Shedd either.
Okay, it’s early here, and I didn’t finish a sentence in my second paragraph: “Perhaps I should have simply been more careful to make myself clear,” is what I believe I intended to write.
Jonathan,
I was using the phrase “agenda-driven” as a euphemism for biased. Of course, one might then respond that we all have our biases, and this would also be true. So, to put a finer point on it, and to try to be as precise as possible: I believe that many (though not all) of the posts on Steven’s blog are biased in such a way as to distort the evidence he presents. He, on the other hand, believes he only being, as they say on the FOX network, fair and balanced. I still enjoy dialoguing and debating with him (when I have time, which is running out on me right now) in spite of it, however. And I also think that there’s a lot on his web site that is of benefit.
To this “agenda” business- I am not of the mindset that everyone has an agenda that distorts reality, and therefore we should just name our agendas and abide by them respectively.
I am, to the contrary, of the opinion that there is such a thing as a correct interpretation and an incorrect interpretation.
My interpretation is that Calvin teaches an unlimited expiation, as evidenced by the 100 plus citations where he says that and then works that concept into other areas of theology, especially ministerial practice.
He “limits” the atonement when it comes to application, which is what all non-universalists do, but this is beside the point at hand.
My claim is that Calvin is a moderate, much like Vermigil, Ursinus, Pareus, Davenant, and Ward. I don’t think that’s too much of a stretch.
Wherever Dabney, Shedd, and Hodge may disagree, the nature of the atonement is not one of those places. They each assert that the content of expiation is not the place to put the limitation, but rather the limit comes in the will to apply the expiation.
The High Calvinist position lacks a category for an objective expiation, and thus when they read those who posses such a category they feel the pressure to expose “the real problem,” which is always some sort of Arminianism or partial Arminianism.
The facts of history do not support this however, as even among the diversity and confusion at Dort, there is still clear enough evidence of a moderate position that is independent of and free from the problems of Arminianism or quasi-Arminianism.
The charge of selective quoting will not stick once the selection reaches triple digits, compared to the opponents dubious two selections.
The charge of selectivity further collapses when the inner-consistency of Calvin’s system is shown, noticeably in the areas of Church and Sacraments.
If Christ did, in fact, not shed his blood for the reprobate, then the Church (the one that meets on Sundays) ought to be made up exclusively of the Elect.
Calvin rejects this of course (because he is not a baptist), and he states that Christ is held out to all in both Word and Sacrament. The reprobate *reject* what is offered to them, and thus are accountable for doing so. Negligent ministers are also accountable for failing to tend after those whom Christ died for, says Calvin, and if a person falls away from the church and dies condemned, Calvin accuses the ministers of making the redemption gotten by Christ to be of no effect.
He clearly says, as Tony has already quoted, “And again, has not our Lord Jesus Christ redeemed men’s souls: true it is that the effect of his death comes not to the whole world: Nevertheless for as much as it is not in us to discern between the righteous and the sinners that go to destruction, but that Jesus Christ has suffered his death and passion as well for them as for us: therefore it behooves us to labour to bring every man to salvation that the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ made be available to them.” Calvin, Sermons on Job, p. 454.
As we can see in Calvin’s writings, there is distinction made between a general and universal sacrifice made for all persons, and the application of it which is made effectual to believers through the means of grace.
This is all part of God’s eternal will. He desires all facets of this discussion, and He effectually causes whatsoever comes to pass. We all agree.
But, again, I’m right on Calvin.
Hi Steven,
I see that Shedd was also mentioned above. Here’s some Shedd arsenal for you:
http://www.geocities.com/ynot_tony.geo/SheddQuote.htm
It’s not completely edited and corrected yet, but the content may make it easy for you to cut and paste needed Shedd material for the time being.
One could, if they were convinced from Scripture, take the position that Calvin is wrong in this matter; but it is disengenuous to argue, as if he, in effect, has not said the things he has said.
Grammar, blah!
My comment (41) should read “One could, if he…”