Did Calvin believe in Gereral redemption?

[Matthew1344]

"18. Therefore, etc. This is a defective sentence; it will be complete if the words condemnation and justification be read in the nominative case; as doubtless you must do in order to complete the sense. We have here the general conclusion from the preceding comparison; for, omitting the mention of the intervening explanation, he now completes the comparison, “As by the offense of one we were made (constitute) sinners; so the righteousness of Christ is efficacious to justify us. He does not say the righteousness — δικαιοσύνην, but the justification — δικαίωμα, 173 of Christ, in order to remind us that he was not as an individual just for himself, but that the righteousness with which he was endued reached farther, in order that, by conferring this gift, he might enrich the faithful. He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God’s benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him."

What does he mean by the bold?
Extremely confused.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

I don't see any bold!

 

[GloriousBoaz]

Yeah I don't know if Calvin was thinking of a universal atonement (not universalism) or a well meant offer, my theology in this area is weak in its infancy. I have heard several quotes of Calvin that are universal, some people say they were unguarded statements or that Calvin didn't have time to tackle that area of theology with all the other bits of the wheel he was reinventing because of the Catholic rubble that had to be fixed. Some say that Beza finished Calvin's natural progression of where his thoughts would have lead him had he considered it more, but its funny how Calvin as far as I know, didn't write anything promoting limited atonement. Would some of the heavy hitters please weigh in on this I'd love some more insight here?! Thanks.

 

[MW]

Although disputed, it seems to me that a good case can be made for understanding Calvin's universalistic statements as referring to the offer of Christ in the gospel to all men, while the particularist statements are concerned with the purpose of God to redeem the elect. This follows the contours of Calvin's own system of thought, especially his view of revelation and the decree. The alternative is to make him sound like he did not know what he was talking about. That might be acceptable to people who do not know what they are talking about, but it is unacceptable when speaking about a person of Calvin's capability.

 

[Matthew1344]

it is in bold now.

So, is Calvin proclaiming the cross as a universal offer to every individual sinner, but saying it is only accessible to those elect individuals who Christ purchased faith for? If so, how is it an offer?

 

[MW]

So, is Calvin proclaiming the cross as a universal offer to every individual sinner, but saying it is only accessible to those elect individuals who Christ purchased faith for? If so, how is it an offer?

The offer is made indiscriminately to all and must be regarded as genuine and sincere. If a person does not believe the gospel and receive the gift of salvation it is entirely his own fault. There is no deficiency in the provision and offer of salvation. From the perspective of God's decree, none are able to believe without the powerful and gracious drawing of the Father. Whom God wills to draw is known to Himself alone. His decree is hidden from us and forms no part of the sinner's warrant to believe in Christ.

 

[Matthew1344]

With your logic, then it would not be wrong to tell a whole crowd "God died for you all"

 

[MW]

With your logic, then it would not be wrong to tell a whole crowd "God died for you all"

I would not say "God died." It would be confusing to those who are not well versed in Chacedonian orthodoxy. I also would not say "Christ died for you all," because the word "for" suggests "intention," which would be a statement relative to the purpose of God, and therefore untrue.

 

[Matthew1344]

Yeah, that was what I was thinking too. I dont think it is true either to say to a group "Christ died for all our you".

But when you say

The offer is made indiscriminately to all and must be regarded as genuine and sincere.

I do not understand how it can be an "offer" if Christ did not die for them.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Matt F,
Why are you determined to (try to) understand this matter "from God's perspective?" Is that perspective even open to you? Do you question divine sincerity, or are these questions merely hypothetical?

From where we are standing as men, and as preachers of the gospel, and upon the same ground as our audience, we have a perfectly genuine offer of salvation for the masses. It is precisely because God has not chosen to share his intimate and ultimate determinations with anyone, reserving his own counsel, that the offer made through his generally accessible Word and his ministers is most genuine and sincere.

The fact is that the redemption purchased by Christ is by anyone's personal virtue utterly inaccessible, especially due not to lack of strength, but lack of will. One could just as well call the genuineness of God's offer into question for every man, because all (without exception) lack the intrinsic will to believe, and only some are granted empowerment by the Spirit's agency. So, if someone should oppose a Calvinist explanation of soteriology based on perceived issues with the extent of the Atonement, why not go all the way and oppose it on every other basis as well?

There IS, there exists a perfect sacrifice for sin, available to every believer; so believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. That statement and command is the open invitation, and it is true and offered to all mankind irrespective of their destiny. For anyone to demand to know more, as a condition of his response, is only to evidence hardness and unwillingness to let God set the terms of his own invitation. If such a person rejects such an offer, because he knows that some will go to hell, and clearly the death of Christ was unavailing for them (and so it was not actually for those who perish), he is perverse. God's Word is truth, no matter what the secrets of his foreordination are; and men are obligated to believe him, whether they will or not.

Even as a professing believer, it is dangerous and foolish to open oneself up to the possibility that God is not actually good and sincere. This was the sin of Adam and Eve, who having opened that door found they could not close it. They were fooled into supposing there was an experimental or rational way of knowing things as God knows them, rather than the analogous way provided for them through obedience.

Bottom line: God's sincerity in presenting Christ (who is, of himself, an overwhelming and immeasurable sacrifice) to any unique individual is not contingent on him having been elect. That God knows and has determined who will respond to the general call in faith, and who will continue in unbelief, cannot make a LIE (insincerity) out of the invitation. Now, if God made an effectual call upon a person, and then after granting full faith and repentance freely then rescinded his mercy, THAT would be insincerity. And God never does that.

 

[MW]

I do not understand how it can be an "offer" if Christ did not die for them.

See Rev. Buchanan's post for fuller explanation. In brief, because the offer is indiscriminate it is also indefinite. It does not state for WHOM Christ died, but for WHAT Christ died. The Gospel offers salvation to SINNERS. It is also tendered conditionally: Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved. He who believes shall be saved. That is the testimony of the gospel which provides the warrant to believe and the promise of salvation to the believer.

 

[Matthew1344]

I'm sorry if I offended you. I am wresting with the bible. I'm reading John Owen and trying think out everything he is saying. Thanks for your help

 

[MW]

I'm sorry if I offended you. I am wresting with the bible. I'm reading John Owen and trying think out everything he is saying. Thanks for your help

There was no offence. Quite the opposite. You have raised difficulties which are worth taking time to work through. John Owen will provide solid guidelines for thinking through the subject.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

The call to the gospel is to be for all, not knowing who amongst us are the elect. The gospel works effectually for the elect only, though.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

Armourbearer, I really love how you've articulated your thoughts in this thread. Kudos, and spot on!