Calvin and Limited Atonement

Miller · #1 (**permalink**) 07-21-2007, 11:29 AM

Did Calvin believe in limited atonement? He said in his last testament "I testify also and declare, that I suppliantly beg of Him that He may be pleased so to wash and purify me in the blood which my Sovereign Redeemer has shed for the sins of the human race, that under His shadow I may be able to stand at the judgment seat. ”
What are we to make of this?

AV1611 · #2 (**permalink**) 07-21-2007, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miller

Did Calvin believe in limited atonement?

Firstly, does it matter? We believe it because it is Biblical right?
Secondly, I think that he did although it is not set forth in a systematic way by him.

Miller · #3 (**permalink**) 07-21-2007, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Firstly, does it matter?

I'm writing a biography on him for class and thought I might address it, but needed some help.

Quote:

We believe it because it is Biblical right?

Certainly.

larryjf · #4 (**permalink**) 07-21-2007, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miller

Did Calvin believe in limited atonement? He said in his last testament "I testify also and declare, that I suppliantly beg of Him that He may be pleased so to wash and purify me in the blood which my Sovereign Redeemer has shed for the sins of the human race, that under His shadow I may be able to stand at the judgment seat. ”
What are we to make of this?

I believe in limited atonement (although i prefer the term particular atonement).
I also believe that Christ died for the human race.
I don't think these are mutually exclusive views.
If He didn't die for the human race, who did He die for?
I don't think you will find any Calvinist who doesn't think Christ died for humans.

Miller · #5 (**permalink**) 07-21-2007, 12:27 PM

I was under the impression that particular atonement meant that Christ's death atoned for the sins of the elect and not the human race. Am I mistaken? or maybe when I say human race I mean all of humanity, is that where the problem is?

mgeoffriau · #6 (**permalink**) 07-21-2007, 12:35 PM

It's perhaps not the clearest term, but I don't think one is forced to assume that "the human race" must intend "the entire human race". It simply specifies the category of beings for whom Christ died; not angels, and not animals; humans.

larryjf · #7 (**permalink**) 07-21-2007, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miller

I was under the impression that particular atonement meant that Christ's death atoned for the sins of the elect and not the human race. Am I mistaken? or maybe when I say human race I mean all of humanity, is that where the problem is?

One of the issues is that you are adding "all" when that is not in Calvin's quote.

Another issue is that a Calvinist can say that Christ died for all of the human race, or the entire world. But it would be in a biblical context. What we would mean by that would be that He died for all races, all nations, etc...and not only for Israel. The Bible reveals God's salvation through a man (Abraham), a family (Isaac), a nation (Jacob/Israel), and finally the entire world in Christ.

Miller · #8 (**permalink**) 07-21-2007, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larryjf

One of the issues is that you are adding "all" when that is not in Calvin's quote.

Another issue is that a Calvinist can say that Christ died for all of the human race, or the entire world. But it would be in a biblical context. What we would mean by that would be that He died for all races, all nations, etc...and not only for Israel. The Bible reveals God's salvation through a man (Abraham), a family (Isaac), a nation (Jacob/Israel), and finally the entire world in Christ.

Great! Thank you for clearing that up. I see exactly what you're saying and I agree.

larryjf · #9 (**permalink**) 07-21-2007, 01:00 PM

Contra_Mundum · #10 (**permalink**) 07-21-2007, 02:12 PM

Miller,
This subject has been brought up several times. So you might do a site-search on the topic.

The issue really comes down to "who rightly understood Calvin?" Did those who penned our Confessions get Calvin right? Or did the Amyraldians? The question comes down to understanding "purpose" as it relates to Christ's atoning work. Reformed orthodoxy settled on the "sufficient-efficient" distinction when speaking of Christ's death, one for the world, the other for the elect.

Those who disagree with this formula insist (wrongly IMO) that this distinction is false, because there must be an "efficiency" regarding his death for the world. And they hang contingent on this reading the honesty of the free offer of the gospel. The sins of the reprobate must, they say, actually have been atoned for in the intent of God's heart. There is some suspended transaction, then, so far as application goes--the expiatory/propitiatory benefits which actually belong in particular to individuals not being (never) applied to them due to the absence of faith.

But, of course Calvin never spoke in terms of suspended transactions either. Although the finer points in question waited until the generation following his for clear definition, the question again goes to "who can rightly claim their view as a re-expression of Calvin's thought?" Though Calvin spoke of the world-wide extent of God's mercy in Christ, the intent of it in his speech goes consistently to the elect. Calvin in at least one place expressely declares that Christ's "blood was not shed for them [the wicked]."

Both in Calvin, and later in Reformed orthodoxy, the work of salvation was seen as one grand design, terminating in Christ himself and the elect for whom he came. To create an intention beside (or even at odds with) the salvific one for the elect is to make the cross, in some cases, "of none effect." And, contrary to Jesus express declaration in John 17, it separates those for whom he died into two camps--one for which he intercedes effectually, and another for which he doesn't (esp. cf. vv. 2, 9, 19).

Simply put: if Jesus died for you, then he prays for you, and the Father always hears him (Jn. 11:42); and if he doesn't pray for you, then he didn't die for you, because "for their [those given him out of the world] sakes" he sanctified himself (17:6, 19).

I suggest reading Roger Nicole on this topic. If you can find Standing Forth (one volume of his collected writings), he has an entire section on the Atonement, dealing in part with the disputes over Calvin's view.

Jerusalem Blade · #11 (**permalink**) 07-21-2007, 02:45 PM

Bruce, your succinct and clear points here -- and elsewhere -- are appreciated!

Steve

KMK · #12 (**permalink**) 07-22-2007, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Miller,
This subject has been brought up several times. So you might do a site-search on the topic.

The issue really comes down to "who rightly understood Calvin?" Did those who penned our Confessions get Calvin right? Or did the Amyraldians? The question comes down to understanding "purpose" as it relates to Christ's atoning work. Reformed orthodoxy settled on the "sufficient-efficient" distinction when speaking of Christ's death, one for the world, the other for the elect.

Those who disagree with this formula insist (wrongly IMO) that this distinction is false, because there must be an "efficiency" regarding his death for the world. And they hang contingent on this reading the honesty of the free offer of the gospel. The sins of the reprobate must, they say, actually have been atoned for in the intent of God's heart. There is some suspended transaction, then, so far as application goes--the expiatory/propitiatory benefits which actually belong in particular to individuals not being (never) applied to them due to the absence of faith.

But, of course Calvin never spoke in terms of suspended transactions either. Although the finer points in question waited until the generation following his for clear definition, the question again goes to "who can rightly claim their view as a re-expression of Calvin's thought?" Though Calvin spoke of the world-wide extent of God's mercy in Christ, the intent of it in his speech goes consistently to the elect. Calvin in at least one place expressely declares that Christ's "blood was not shed for them [the wicked]."

Excellently put, Bruce. You have a way of putting parts of an argument in simple terms in order to look at it as a whole.

Are those with whom you disagree those same ones who say they are not 'limited atonement' but 'limited attainment'?

In addition, I do not understand the argument that for the 'free offer' to be sincere it must also be effecient. What are the particulars of this argument? Who are the major champions of this view?