No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 June 2011
The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that Calvin's interpretation of biblical passages related to the question of the extent of the atonement differed significantly from the later tradition. This difference in interpretation is explained by the fact that Calvin did not share certain hermeneutical presuppositions which were to become almost universal among theologians of the later Reformed tradition. This article will examine two hermeneutical ‘rules’ which Calvin frequently employed in his interpretation of scripture and will contrast his handling of scripture with the interpretative practices employed by the later Reformed tradition. The first hermeneutical ‘rule’ involves those passages in scripture which state that Christ came to give his life as a ransom for ‘many’, or that he shed his blood for ‘many’. Contrary to the later Reformed interpreters of scripture, Calvin understands these passages to mean that Christ died for all people rather than just some. The second hermeneutical ‘rule’ concerns Calvin's frequent appeal to the fact that the word ‘all’ does not always mean ‘all’ when it is used in scripture. Certain present-day Reformed theologians argue that since Calvin shares this second hermeneutical rule with the later Reformed tradition, then his reading of scripture must not have differed significantly from that of the later tradition. Therefore, Calvin must have held to a limited atonement. However, this article will show that this conclusion only holds true if we read Calvin's own writings by means of this hermeneutic.
1 See Muller, Richard A., Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology (Durham, NC: Labyrinth Press, 1986)Google Scholar; The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition, Oxford Studies in Historical Theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000); After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition, Oxford Studies in Historical Theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003).
2 Unless otherwise noted, scripture is from the New American Standard Bible, © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by the Lochman Foundation. Used by permission.
3 Owen, John, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1967)Google Scholar. Repr. from The Works of John Owen, vol. 10 (Edinburgh: Johnstone & Hunter, 1850–3).
4 This interpretative principle is affirmed by J. I. Packer in the introduction to the Banner of Truth Trust's edn of The Death of Death. See also Murray, John, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1955), pp. 62–3Google Scholar; Grudem, Wayne, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), pp. 598–9Google Scholar.
5 Calvin, John, New Testament Commentaries, ed. , D. W. and Torrance, T. F., 12 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1959–72)Google Scholar, vol. 2, A Harmony of the Gospels: Matthew Mark and Luke, Matt 20:28. All Latin references to Calvin's New Testament Commentaries are from Ioannis Calvini in Novum Testamentum Commentarii, ed. A. Tholuck, 7 vols. (Amsterdam: Berolini, 1833–4; hereafter NTC), 2.181. In his commentary on Rom 5:15, Calvin asks us to observe ‘that a larger number (plures) are not here contrasted with many (multis), for he speaks not of the number of men: but as the sin of Adam has destroyed many, he draws this conclusion,—that the righteousness of Christ will be no less efficacious to save many’, NTC 5.76. He specifically states that ‘many’ is not to be understood as being contrasted with a larger number, such as ‘all’.
6 , Calvin, Commentaries, 45 vols (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1843–55Google Scholar; repr. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1948–50), vol. 8, Isa 53:12. Ioannis Calvini Opera quae Supersunt Omnia, ed. W. Baum, E. Cunitz, and E. Reuss, 59 vols, Corpus Reformatorum, vols 29–87 (Brunswick: C. A. Schwetschke & Son, 1863–1900), 37.266, hereafter CO.
7 Calvin, Comm., Mark 14:24, NTC 2.311.
8 Calvin, Comm., Heb 9:27, NTC 7.93–4.
9 This contrast is recognised by Curt D. Daniel in an appendix to his 1983 University of Edinburgh Ph.D. dissertation, ‘Hyper-Calvinism and John Gill’, p. 795. In his appendix, ‘Did John Calvin Teach Limited Atonement?’, Daniel argues that Calvin held to a universal atonement.
10 , Calvin, Sermons on Isaiah's Prophecy of the Death and Passion of Christ, ed. and trans. Parker, T. H. L. (London: James Clark & Co, 1956), p. 141Google Scholar, CO 35.678.
11 Particularists will frequently appeal to Calvin's Commentary on 1 John 2:2 as being an instance where he explicitly affirms particular redemption. However, in later comments on the same passage in his Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, Calvin explicitly states that ‘[i]t is incontestable that Christ came for the expiation of the sins of the whole world’ (Concerning, p. 149. CO 8.336). Furthermore, in both cases, in his Commentary on 1 John and in his argument against Georgius in Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, the hermeneutical danger in Calvin's mind is not that someone might interpret this passage as teaching that Christ had died for all humankind, but rather that some had used this verse to teach that the whole world would be saved, including Satan. Therefore, there is reason to believe that what Calvin ‘limits’ in his commentary on 1 John is not the extent of the atonement, but rather the extent of actual salvation. For a fuller discussion on this passage see my Union with Christ and the Extent of the Atonement in Calvin (New York: Peter Lang, 2002), pp. 38–40, 49–51.
12 See n. 4 above.
13 , Calvin, The Deity of Christ and Other Sermons, trans. Nixon, Leroy (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1950), p. 55Google Scholar, CO 46.836.
14 Calvin, Comm., Gal 5:12, NTC 6.68.
15 Calvin, Comm. John 1:29, NTC 3.21.
16 Calvin, Deity of Christ, p. 95, CO 46.870. This quotation is interesting in that in it Calvin makes no distinction between who the transgressors were or who was deserving of eternal death. While it is true that the elect were at one time transgressors and deserving of eternal death, there is nothing here to indicate that Calvin had only the elect in mind. Furthermore, appealing to the fact that Calvin switches to more exclusive language (‘for us’ and ‘our cause’) and arguing that he had in mind only the elect, may be countered with the fact that he then continues by saying that Christ was there ‘in the person of all cursed ones and of all transgressors, and of those who had deserved eternal death’. Surely the elect were not the only transgressors deserving of eternal death. In this passage Calvin is most naturally understood to have had the whole human race in mind.
17 Calvin, Comm., Col 1:14, NTC 6.225.
18 Calvin, Deity of Christ, p. 156, CO 46.919.
19 Kendall, R. T., Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979)Google Scholar.
20 Nicole, Roger, ‘John Calvin's View of the Extent of the Atonement’, Westminster Theological Journal 47/2 (Fall 1985), p. 217Google Scholar, emphasis added. This article has been repr. in Nicole, Roger, Standing Forth: The Collected Writings of Roger Nicole (Fearn, UK: Christian Focus Publications, 2002), pp. 283–312Google Scholar. See also Helm, Paul, Calvin and the Calvinists (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1982), pp. 43–4Google Scholar.
21 Calvin, Comm., 1 Tim 2:4, NTC 6.353.
22 , Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, trans. Reid, J. K. S. (London: James Clark & Co, 1961), p. 109Google Scholar, CO 6.546.
23 Calvin, Comm., Tit 2:11, NTC 6.476. (Nominatim universis communem esse testatur propter servos, de quibus loquutus erat. Interea non intelligit singulos homines, sed ordines potius notat, aut diversa vitae genera. Atque hoc non parvam emphasin habet, quod Dei gratia ad servile usque genus se demiserit. Nam quum Deus ne infimos quidem et postremae sortis homines despicat, plus quam absurdam foret, nos ad amplexandam eius bonitatem pigros esse ac desides.)
24 Calvin, Comm., John 6:45, NTC 3.124. Helm refers to this quotation as proof that when Calvin uses the word ‘all’ he is not necessarily referring to the whole world (Calvin and the Calvinists, p. 46).
25 This could equally be deduced from Helm's writings. Both point to Calvin's inclusion of such phrases as ‘for us’ at places where he also writes of Christ dying for the whole world. Helm and Nicole argue that the inclusion of such limiting phrases as ‘for us’ indicate a qualification of the universal language employed by Calvin. Their point is that while Calvin does frequently employ phrases such as ‘Christ died for the sins of the whole world’, he should be understood to mean that ‘Christ died for the sins of all the elect’.
26 Nicole, ‘John Calvin's View’, p. 217.