Whosoever Will

Was Calvin a “Calvinist”? John Calvin on the Extent of the Atonement

Was Calvin a Calvinist? That question is like asking whether Augustine was an Augustinian or whether Luther was a Lutheran. If anyone could be regarded as a Lutheran, then certainly Martin Luther qualifies. By the same token, the Bishop of Hippo certainly meets the criteria for being an Augustinian. However, if one were to ask whether Lutheranism and Augustinianism accurately represent the teachings of the theologians for whom these theological traditions are named, many theologians and church historians would say that they do not. In the same way, some theologians and historians have said the system of doctrine popularly referred to as Calvinism does not necessarily reflect the thinking of John Calvin himself. The possibility exists that the thinking of Calvin differs significantly from that of the later theological school frequently bearing his name.

The theological tradition known as Reformed theology, often popularly referred to simply as “Calvinism,” can actually claim many significant theologians as sources, not the least of whom include Ulrich Zwingli, Martin Bucer, Heinrich Bullinger, and Theodore Beza. Referring to Reformed theology simply as “Calvinism,” therefore, would itself be both inaccurate and misleading, for the term Calvinism obscures the fact that Reformed theology owes its existence to many significant churchmen and theologians. Furthermore, the term Calvinism is frequently used as a sort of shorthand to describe the Reformed theological consensus articulated at the conclusion of the Synod of Dort in the Netherlands (1618–1619), a full 55 years after John Calvin’s death in 1564. The familiar “Five Points” of Calvinism—Total depravity, Unconditional predestination, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints (a.k.a. TULIP)—are a popular summary of the Reformed consensus arrived at during the Synod of Dort. Frequently, people are referring to this consensus, and these five points, when they speak of “Calvinism.” Therefore, since these points were articulated over half a century after Calvin’s death, and since they represent a consensus among many Reformed theologians, the question would naturally arise whether the five points of “Calvinism” accurately represent the thought of Calvin himself.

In fact, some of Calvin’s own countrymen teaching at the Protestant Academy of Saumur, in France, raised the question as to whether the Synod of Dort accurately reflected Calvin’s thought, shortly after that synod met. This group of French Calvinists, the most famous of whom was Moise Amyraut, began to raise questions about the theological consensus of Dort. In his Treatise on Predestination, Amyraut presented a view of unconditional predestination based upon a universal atonement demonstrating God’s universal benevolence toward all mankind—a position he claimed was not only more true to Scripture but also more true to the teachings of Calvin.¹ Amyraut claimed that the view of the atonement expressed in the Canons of the Synod of Dort, which most people understood to teach that Christ died only for the elect, was actually a departure from Calvin’s teaching.

That Calvin did not hold a view of limited atonement (or particular atonement as it is often called) is a claim that has persisted over the intervening years. Many, including the present writer, have argued Calvin taught that Christ died for the sins of the entire world.² Despite frequent claims that Calvin taught universal atonement and not limited atonement, many “Calvinists” have come to Calvin’s defense, as it were, in an attempt to set the record straight, once and for all, that the theologian for whom their theological system is named certainly agreed with that system.

Two such theologians to come to Calvin’s defense on this issue are Paul Helm and Roger Nicole. Following the 1979 publication of R.T. Kendall’s book, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649, both Nicole and Helm defended Calvin against Kendall’s bold claim that Calvin taught that Christ died indiscriminately for the sins of the entire world.³ Helm published an article and a monograph in which he took Kendall to task for claiming that Calvin taught universal atonement.⁴ Nicole wrote a lengthy article in which he discussed the various passages from Calvin’s writings that have been offered in support of the claim that Calvin taught that Christ died for all of humanity.⁵ Still others joined the discussion as people on both sides of the question often cited the same or similar passages from Calvin’s writings in support of the claim that Calvin taught either a limited atonement or a universal atonement.⁶ The current writer even joined the discussion as a late arrival when he wrote his Ph.D. dissertation on the question of Calvin’s view on the extent of the atonement.⁷

That Calvin never addressed the question of the extent of the atonement as a separate doctrinal point makes this debate especially fascinating. Also, since those on either side of the issue frequently quoted the same passages from Calvin’s writings in order to make their cases, the various debaters often would appeal to other elements of Calvin’s theology, or to the overall logic of his theology, in order to try to make their case. Those who were adamant that Calvin taught a limited atonement often argued that this position was the only one that fit the logic of the rest of his theology. Their arguments frequently reduced to something like the following: since Calvin taught that Christ died as our substitute and since Calvin taught that not all would be saved, Calvin must have held that Christ died only for the elect. In other words, a limited atonement was a necessary logical inference based on other elements of Calvin’s theology.

Both Paul Helm and Roger Nicole employed this way of arguing. Both Helm and Nicole also stressed that since Calvin held a substitutionary view of the atonement, he could not possibly hold the view of universal atonement.⁸ They argued 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 all those for whom it was intended; or (2) if not all of humanity is to be saved, then Christ must not have died for all of humanity. Therefore, since Calvin held to a substitutionary atonement and further held that not all would be saved, then Calvin must have held the view of a limited atonement. Helm and Nicole argue by inference from Calvin’s substitutionary understanding of the atonement that Calvin necessarily must have held a doctrine of limited atonement. Although Helm admits that Calvin never presents limited atonement as an explicit doctrine, 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.”⁹ Roger Nicole makes a far more interesting remark. When addressing what he claims is a necessary link between limited atonement and the concept of substitution, Nicole remarks that “it is difficult to imagine that Calvin failed to perceive the necessary link between substitution and definite [i.e. limited] atonement, or that, having perceived it, he carried on without regard to this matter!”¹⁰ Nicole rightly assumes that Calvin was a careful thinker. However, Nicole’s statement begs the question in that it is based on a supposed necessary corollary of the issue under debate. The question is whether Calvin held the view of a definite atonement. If Calvin did not hold the view of a definite atonement, then Calvin probably would not have affirmed the supposed necessary corollary of that doctrine Nicole offers as evidence that Calvin held the view of a definite atonement.

Despite Nicole’s improper argument at this point, he does draw attention to an important point: whatever Calvin’s understanding of the extent of the atonement, certain other elements within his theology should coalesce with his view on the extent of the atonement. For instance, if Calvin did profess limited atonement, one would not expect to find him intentionally universalizing scriptural passages that theologians from the later Reformed tradition claim are, from a simple reading of the text, clearly teaching that Christ died only for the elect. Furthermore, if Calvin truly believed that Christ died only for the elect, then one would not expect to find Calvin claiming that unbelievers who reject the gospel are rejecting an actual provision that Christ made for them on the cross. Nor would one expect Calvin, were he a proponent of limited atonement, to fail to refute bold claims that Christ died for all of humanity when he was engaged in polemical arguments with Roman Catholics and others. However, the truth is, Calvin does all of this and more.

While the debate over Calvin’s view on the extent of the atonement cannot be resolved in a paper of this length, an initial investigation can show that those who claim that Calvin held the view of universal atonement are well within their rights to make that claim. Also, in a relatively short work such as this, we must pose a question that can be reasonably answered in the space allotted. Roger Nicole’s claim that Calvin’s view on the question of the extent of the atonement should “square” with the rest of his theology suggests that question: Are there elements in Calvin’s writings that one should not expect to find there if Calvin were a proponent of limited atonement? While the short answer to this question is yes, it will take some investigation in order to show that this conclusion is a reasonable one. Therefore, the remainder of this chapter will be devoted to setting before the reader some of the elements in Calvin’s writings that are incongruous with a limited atonement. However, the reader should remember that this argument is not meant to be an exhaustive investigation of Calvin’s vast theological production, nor can an argument of this sort be conclusive. This chapter is simply offered as an attempt to show how it is not unreasonable to claim that Calvin held to a universal atonement.¹¹

Universal Language in Calvin

Even though Calvin nowhere deals 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, Calvin does make many statements that bear on the question of his view on the extent of the atonement. What is rather conspicuous, and perhaps somewhat troubling to those who claim that Calvin held to particular redemption, is the extent to which Calvin employs universal language to describe the atonement. Furthermore, Calvin uses universal language in many different contexts such as in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, in his commentaries and sermons, as well as in several of his polemical writings. Were Calvin a proponent of limited atonement, one would not expect to see so many passages in which he employs universal language to describe the death of Christ. A sample of these passages will demonstrate how freely Calvin used 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 simply assert 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 Iesus devoit souffrir pour la redemprion du genre humain).¹²

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).¹³

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.¹⁴

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.¹⁵

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 merité la mort 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 silent (D’autant donc que Iesus Christ ha vest office-lá, et qu’il porte les fardeaux de tous ceux qui avoyent offensé Dieu mortelle, ent, voyla porquoy is se taist).¹⁶

All of the above excerpts 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.¹⁷

In other instances 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).¹⁸

On him was laid the guilt of the whole world.¹⁹

God is satisfied and appeased, for he bore all the wickedness and all the iniquities of the world.²⁰

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.²¹

Christ interceded as his [man’s] advocate, 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.²²

In a few instances Calvin presents Christ as appearing before the judgment 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.²³

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.²⁴

At this point introducing an objection sometimes raised by particularist interpreters of Calvin would be appropriate. Some particularists have appealed to the fact that Calvin often includes exclusive phrases in otherwise universal statements, such as the phrase “our burden” at the end of the passage immediately above. They argue that Calvin’s use of this more exclusive phrase constitutes a qualification of the previous universal phrase(s), thus indicating that the entire sentence or passage was meant to refer only to the elect.²⁵ Yet it may be argued that a particular reference to what Christ has done for “us” need not be understood as necessarily excluding the non-elect. Furthermore, several of the passages cited above make clear that Calvin carefully points out that it was for us and not for Himself that Christ died. Two examples will illustrate this theme. Notice Calvin’s concern that we understand that Christ died for others and not for Himself.

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 savor for expiating all sins.²⁶

He must be the redeemer of the world. 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, and of those who had deserved eternal death. 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 silent.²⁷

Notice how, in both of these passages, Calvin underscores the fact that Christ was not condemned to death for anything He had done, but rather He was condemned for our sins. Calvin employs “exclusive” language here not to teach that Christ died only for us Christians, the elect, but to make clear that Christ is not to be included among the number of those who needed redemption.

In this last quotation Calvin makes no distinction between all of those who were cursed, those deserving eternal death, and those whose burdens Christ bore. While the elect were at one time cursed and deserving of eternal death, nothing here indicates that Calvin has only the elect in mind. Calvin specifically mentions that “he bears the burdens of all those who had offended God mortally.” Surely the elect were not the only ones “who had offended God mortally.” Should not the non-elect be included in this number as well? In this passage Calvin can only reasonably be understood to have been writing about what Christ had done for the whole human race. Furthermore, considering how Calvin elsewhere uses universal language so freely to describe the death of Christ, there is no good reason to understand passages such as the two above as indicating a conscious decision on Calvin’s part to limit the death of Christ to the elect alone—that is, unless one is predisposed to qualify all such language oneself. The previous unqualified statements demonstrate that Calvin was not so predisposed.

These passages provide just a sampling of the many places where Calvin uses universal language to describe the atonement.²⁸ Passages like these have led many to claim that Calvin did not hold to particular redemption. However, the evidence that Calvin might have held the view of universal atonement is not limited to these simple, straightforward universal statements. In fact, there are far stronger reasons to make this claim. The next section will examine Calvin’s interpretation of a class of biblical texts that proponents of limited atonement claim are, from a simple reading of the text, clearly teaching that Christ died only for the elect. Were Calvin a proponent of limited atonement, one would expect him to interpret these texts in a way similar to the interpretations other proponents of limited atonement give. Instead, we find Calvin universalizing texts that the later tradition claims are clearly teaching limited atonement—something we should certainly not expect from Calvin, were he truly a proponent of limited atonement.

Calvin’s Universalizing of the “Many” Passages

When proponents of limited atonement argue for their position, they frequently begin with an appeal to Scripture passages that speak of Christ dying for “many,” “his sheep,” or “his Church.” John Owen’s argument in The Death of Death in the Death of Christ begins this way. The first chapter of this work asks for whom Christ died. He appeals to Matt 20:28 (“the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many” NIV, emphasis added) 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.²⁹ He assumes that Christ and the biblical writers consciously used the word “many” with the intention of excluding some. Otherwise, Christ and the biblical writers would have used the word all. Even contemporary particularists frequently use this argument.³⁰

Looking at how Calvin handled this passage and similar ones reveals a striking dissimilarity between his interpretation and the interpretations of later “Calvinists” such as Owen. Passages such as Matt 20:28 provided Calvin with a perfect opportunity to affirm particular redemption if he had so desired. Instead of interpreting the word “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 Christ’s use of the word “many” as it occurs in Matt 20:28:

“Many” is used, not for a definite number, but for a large number (Multos ponit non definite pro certo numero, sed pro pluribus), 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).³¹

Instead of taking the opportunity presented by this text to limit the atonement to the elect alone, Calvin universalizes it.³² Furthermore, as was noted previously, Calvin frequently wants to underscore that Christ died for others and not for Himself. The phrase “he sets himself over against all others” seems to indicate that Calvin had this interest here as well. 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 accipi).³³

Calvin interprets Mark 14:24 (“This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many” KJV) 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.³⁴

Calvin’s exegesis of Heb 9:28 (“Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many” KJV) 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).³⁵

Once again Calvin universalizes the word “many” to include all sinners, not just the elect. Note also in this passage that Calvin seems to understand that, despite the fact that Christ has died for all, unbelief hinders people from enjoying the fruit of Christ’s death.

Notice also the contrast that Calvin makes in the two previous passages. Calvin understands the biblical writers as contrasting the “many” with the “one,” Jesus Christ. As mentioned previously, Calvin wants his readers to understand the teaching of Jesus: it was not for Himself that He died but for others. Had the text said that Christ died for “all,” then presumably that number would have included Christ Himself. Therefore, Calvin explains that the the word “many” in these biblical passages functions to exclude Christ from among those who were in need of an atoning sacrifice. It does not function to exclude the non-elect.

In contrast to Calvin’s handling of these and similar passages, particularists usually claim Jesus and the biblical writers deliberately chose the word many instead of the word all. A typical particularist interpretation of these passages would be that Christ and the biblical writers intend to teach that Christ died only for “many” sinners as opposed to “all” sinners.³⁶ Contrary to this reading, Calvin interprets the presence of the word many as indicating that Christ died for others and not for Himself. Jesus and the biblical writers are not distinguishing between the many people and all people; rather, they are contrasting the many people from the one Jesus Christ. One last passage in which Calvin universalizes the word many comes from a sermon on Isa 53:12 (“he bore the sin of many” NIV).

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 whosoever 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?³⁷

The five passages above seem to demonstrate a conscious and deliberate universalizing of the atonement by Calvin. 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. Were Calvin a proponent of limited atonement, one would certainly not expect Calvin consciously and deliberately to universalize texts that later proponents of limited atonement claim are, from a simple reading of the text, explicitly teaching limited atonement. That this practice of universalizing the word many occurs so frequently and in different contexts (in his commentaries as well as his sermons) goes far toward demonstrating not just a predisposition toward 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 one would not expect, were Calvin a proponent of limited atonement—that unbelievers will be held doubly culpable for rejecting the one who died for them. As the preceding passage has already shown, 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?”³⁸ Here Calvin points to the unbelievers’ rejection of the Christ who died for them as yet another reason for their condemnation. Calvin had previously stated that Christ suffered for all and that there is no one who is “inexcusable today, for we can obtain salvation in Him.” In this passage Calvin seems to assume that Christ has indeed died for those who reject Him. Otherwise, how could their rejection of Christ increase their culpability and demonstrate their ingratitude if Christ has not actually made provision for them?

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. One of the perennial problems of the doctrine of limited atonement is that, if Christ has not actually died for the sins of all of humanity, then we can never assume that Christ has died for the person to whom we are now presenting the gospel. In order to get around this problem, proponents of particular redemption may say that Jesus Christ died for sinners in general and not necessarily for you, or for this particular sinner. The content of the gospel that unbelievers 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. That the prospective convert believe that Christ died for him is not required. That he believe that Christ died for sinners or that Christ is truly Savior of all those who believe is only required.³⁹ Yet Calvin’s writings make fairly clear that the offer of salvation is based on Christ’s dying 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 Gal 2:20 (“I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ 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,” NKJV). He comments on this verse: “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.”⁴⁰ Calvin seems clear in his statement that claiming that Christ died for the world, or for sinners, is not enough. 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.”⁴¹ Notice that in order to be joined with Christ, it is necessary to believe that “it is for me that he hath suffered.” Merely believing that Christ suffered for “sinners” is not sufficient.

That Calvin grounds the universal offer of the gospel in a universal atonement can be seen throughout his writings. His commentary on Rom 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,” RSV) displays a clear example. Calvin interprets this verse 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, yet not all receive him.”⁴² The final clause in Rom 5:18 might seem to indicate that salvation will actually come to all men. However, since Calvin was well aware of the biblical teaching that not all of humanity will be saved, he explains that the universal language of this verse points to God’s gracious offer of the gospel to all men, not to a universal salvation. Calvin clearly recognizes a universal intent in Paul’s statement but interprets the passage to mean that Christ is offered to all the world. What is striking is that, contrary to the practices of many proponents of limited atonement, Calvin goes out of his way at this point to state that Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world. Furthermore, he seems to ground the universal offer of the gospel in a universal atonement, something which the later tradition claims is unnecessary. Proponents of limited atonement want to claim that all that is necessary for the gospel offer to be a legitimate offer to all humanity is for there to exist a command from God to offer the gospel to the world. Calvin, however, seems to connect the legitimacy of the universal offer of the gospel to the fact that Christ has died for the sins of the whole world. This idea is certainly not what one would expect from Calvin were he a proponent of limited atonement. Finally, Calvin explains the limited extent of salvation, not by recourse to a limited extent of the atonement but rather by recourse to the limited extent of faith. Calvin’s commentary on Gal 5:12 also indicates that he understood the universal preaching of the gospel as 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.”⁴³

In the passages cited here, Calvin seems to assume that something makes the universal offer of salvation to the world a legitimate offer of salvation—that Christ has, indeed, died for the sins of the whole world. Without this grounding, the universal offer of salvation might be a disingenuous offer. However, Calvin repeatedly ties the legitimacy of the universal offer of salvation to Christ’s suffering for the sins of the entire world—something that we would certainly not expect to find, were Calvin a proponent of limited atonement. A universal atonement also explains how Calvin can claim that unbelievers are “doubly culpable” for rejecting the gospel because they are rejecting an actual provision God has graciously made for them in Christ.⁴⁴

Universal Atonement in Calvin’s Polemical Writings

Were Calvin a proponent of limited atonement, one would expect that in his disagreements with other theologians he would have taken the opportunity to argue for this position when combating the beliefs of those who affirmed a universal atonement.⁴⁵ 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, he did not disagree with the statement on universal atonement.⁴⁶ Indeed, he specifically mentions the decree dealing with the extent of the atonement and states that he does not disagree with it.⁴⁷ 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.”⁴⁸ The wording in this statement is explicitly universal with regard to the atonement; 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 Roman Church on this point.

One particularly significant passage in Calvin’s polemical writings goes far to demonstrate that not only does Calvin not hold to particular redemption, neither does he hold to a certain theological presupposition that lies at the heart of the limited atonement 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 sspoken out against Calvin’s teaching on predestination. The passage in question is rather lengthy but is worth reading in its entirety:

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 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. 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.⁴⁹

In this passage Calvin is countering Georgius’s argument that, since Christ is said to have died for the whole world, 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. Calvin’s polemic with Georgius clearly indicates 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.⁵⁰ Calvin, then, is not just arguing against someone who holds the view of a universal atonement, but with someone who claims that Christ’s death for the sins of the whole world will actually result in the salvation of the whole world.

Georgius’s position seems to be based on 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—eternal life. Georgius’s 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, the reprobate must be placed somewhere outside the world.

Calvin does not counter Georgius’s argument by denying Georgius’s first premise—that Christ died for the sins of the whole world. Rather, Calvin counters the argument by attacking Georgius’s second premise—that all those for whom Christ died will ultimately be saved. In fact, Calvin states explicitly that it is “incontestable that Christ came for the expiation of the sins of the whole world.”⁵¹ Were Calvin a proponent of limited atonement, he certainly would have corrected Georgius’s belief that Christ died for the sins of the whole world. Instead, he agrees with this part of Georgius’s argument but rejects the assumption that everyone for whom Christ died will be saved. Calvin argues that not all those for whom Christ died will ultimately be saved, for not all believe and are made partakers of Christ.

This passage strikes at the heart of one of the central assumptions of the limited atonement position—that the atonement, because of its nature, absolutely and without exception brings eternal life to everyone for whom that atonement was made. This is the central point from which Georgius is arguing and the point that Calvin is rejecting. Had Calvin been a proponent of limited atonement, his answer to Georgius would have been simple. He could have easily argued that the reprobate are lost, not because they were “outside” the world when atonement was made but because Christ simply did not atone for their sins when He died on the cross. But Calvin does not argue in this way. He affirms, with Georgius, that Christ died for the sins of the whole world. However, he disagrees with Georgius’s second premise that the atoning death of Christ actually saves all of those for whom atonement was made. By rejecting their second premise Calvin is also rejecting the later Reformed tradition’s insistence that the atonement saves all those for whom atonement was made. ⁵²

Conclusion

This discussion of universal atonement in Calvin’s writings, though by no means exhaustive, should be sufficient for the reader to understand why so many scholars since Calvin’s time have claimed that he did not hold to limited atonement. Nevertheless, this discussion is sufficient to demonstrate that, were Calvin a proponent of limited atonement, there is a great deal of problematic material in his writings that is not commensurate with that position. This argument also shows that those who dare to claim that Calvin held to a universal atonement are not making such claims without good reasons.

This discussion has not raised all of the possible objections that particularists have raised surrounding the claim that Calvin taught a universal atonement. For example, while it is true that Calvin does frequently interpret the word many as being virtually equivalent to all when it appears in certain verses of Scripture, Calvin also frequently interprets the word all as meaning something less than “all the people in the world.” Particularists have appealed to this feature of Calvin’s interpretation of Scripture as evidence that he did not differ significantly from the interpretive practices of the later Reformed tradition.⁵³ Many particularist interpreters of Calvin also appeal to Calvin’s commentary on 1 John 2:2 as evidence that Calvin explicitly affirmed limited atonement. Calvin’s comments on this passage do, indeed, appear to affirm limited atonement. However, his comments also demonstrate that his greatest fear in regard to this text was not that someone might interpret this verse as teaching that Christ died for all of humanity but rather that some had interpreted this verse to teach that the whole world, including Satan and his demons, will actually inherit eternal life with God. This simple fact introduces a certain ambiguity in Calvin’s meaning in his commentary on 1 John 2:2.⁵⁴ Also, we must remember the passage from Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God that was addressed above in which Calvin argues against Georgius. In that treatise, published one year after his commentary on 1 John, Calvin states, “It is incontestable that Christ came for the expiation of the sins of the whole world.”⁵⁵ So, even if one does not grant any ambiguity in Calvin’s commentary on 1 John 2:2, there is certainly ambiguity within Calvin’s writings in general regarding his interpretation of 1 John 2:2. Suffice it to say that those on both sides of the question of Calvin’s understanding of the extent of the atonement are well aware of the various “problem” texts that Calvin presents his readers. While the debate over Calvin’s view on the extent of the atonement will likely continue, hopefully this short discussion demonstrates sufficient reasons to question whether Calvin was in complete agreement with the later tradition that often bears his name.

NOTES

1. For a brief discussion of Moise Amyraut and Amyraldism, see “Amyraldism” in The New Dictionary of Theology (ed. S. B. Ferguson, D. F. Wright, and J. I. Packer; Downer’s Grove, IL: 1988), 16–18. For a more extensive analysis of Amyraut and the French Calvinists, see B. G. Armstrong, Calvinism and the Amyrault Heresy: Protestant Scholasticism and Humanism in Seventeenth-Century France (Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1969). Armstrong concluded that Amyraut “recaptured some of the genius of Calvin’s teaching which had been lost by the logically constructed theologies of the orthodox” (265).

2. K. D. Kennedy, Union with Christ and the Extent of the Atonement in Calvin (Bern: Peter Lang, 2002). See also R. T. Kendall, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649 (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1979); J. B. Torrance, “The Incarnation and Limited Atonement,” Evangelical Quarterly 55 (April 1983): 83–94; M. Charles Bell, “Calvin and the Extent of the Atonement,” Evangelical Quarterly 55 (April 1983): 115–23.

3. Kendall, Calvin and English Calvinism, 13.

4. P. Helm wrote a review article of Kendall’s book, titled “Calvin, English Calvinism and the Logic of Doctrinal Development,” Scottish Journal of Theology 34 (1981): 179–85. Helm later expanded this into a short monograph titled Calvin and the Calvinists (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth, 1982).

5. R. Nicole, “John Calvin’s View of the Extent of the Atonement,” Westminster Theological Journal 47, no. 2 (Fall 1985): 197–225. This article has recently been reprinted in Standing Forth: Collected Writings of Roger Nicole (Fearne, Scotland: Christian Focus Publishers, 2002). Nicole specifically notes Kendall’s book as the catalyst to the then current discussion over the question of Calvin’s view on the extent of the atonement.

6. J. B. Torrance, “The Incarnation and ‘Limited Atonement,’ ” Evangelical Quarterly 55 (April 1983): 83–94; T. Lane, “The Quest for the Historical Calvin,” Evangelical Quarterly 55 (April 1983): 95–113; M. C. Bell, “Calvin and the Extent of the Atonement,” Evangelical Quarterly 55 (April 1983): 115–23. Bell also wrote a review article on Helm’s book (SJ T 36, no. 4 [1983]: 535–40) in which he states that, among his other shortcomings, Helm clearly misrepresented Calvin at several places in his attempt to argue that Calvin held to limited atonement.

7. K. D. Kennedy, “Union with Christ as Key to John Calvin’s Understanding of the Extent of the Atonement” (Ph.D. diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1999), later revised and published as Union with Christ and the Extent of the Atonement in Calvin (Bern: Peter Lang, 2002).

8. Helm, Calvin and the Calvinists, 43–44; and Nicole, “John Calvin’s View,” 218.

9. Helm, Calvin and the Calvinists, 18, emphasis in original.

10. Nicole, “John Calvin’s View,” 224.

11. For a more thorough analysis of the question of Calvin’s view on the extent of the atonement, see Kennedy, Union with Christ. For an analysis from the limited atonement perspective, see: G. M. Thomas, The Extent of the Atonement: A Dilemma for Reformed Theology from Calvin to the Consensus, 1536–1675 (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998).