Did anyone teach limited atonement before Calvin

[Till]

I am curious to know whether the docrine of limited atonement was taught by anyone before Calvin. I habve never heard of this doctrine being accpeted in the church before the 16th century.

 

[mlqurgw]

I am curious to know whether the docrine of limited atonement was taught by anyone before Calvin. I habve never heard of this doctrine being accpeted in the church before the 16th century.

When God gave the Law of sacrifices and specifically the Day of Atonement to Moses it was for Israel only. Those scrifices and the the atonement pictured in them didn't have anything to do with any of the Gentiles. It was for God's chosen alone. So yes, it was taught before Calvin. Christ taught it as well as is clearly seen in John 10 and the Good Shepherd giving His life for the sheep. Paul taught it in his doctrinal portions of his epistles. Simply put, it is a Scriptural truth.

 

[McWilliams]

I am curious to know whether the docrine of limited atonement was taught by anyone before Calvin. I habve never heard of this doctrine being accpeted in the church before the 16th century.

Yes, Scripture and Augustine both!

 

[Till]

Thank you for your replies.

Le me rephrase my question: Did anyone before Calvin come to the conclusion that scriptures teach limited atonement?

Do you know where Augustine wrote about it? I knew that he believed in double predestination but have never heard of him teaching limited atonement.

 

[McWilliams]

Well, I've always heard that but I know all the fellas on SR can give you much better info than I so I'll defer to young, intelligent crowd for this answer and we'll both benefit!
Blessings!

Found this: scroll down to 'History of Doctrine of Limited Atonement'. Soooo, perhaps he didnt believe LA.........?

http://www.wscal.edu/clark/atonement.php

 

[McWilliams]

Quotes found citing 'for' and 'against' in the past:

Norman F. Douty, in his excellent book The Death of Christ, lists over 70 of the Church’s leading teachers, from the early centuries to the modern era, who stood firmly for the doctrine that Christ died on behalf of all men, not the elect only (pages 136-163). Here are some of the names on the list: Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Augustine, Martin Luther, Hugh Latimer, Myles Coverdale, Thomas Cranmer, Philip Melanchton, Archbishop Ussher, Richard Baxter, John Newton, John Bunyan, Thomas Scott, Henry Alford, Philip Schaff, Alfred Edersheim, H.C.G. Moule, W.H. Griffith Thomas, and A.T. Robertson.

For a 'Limited Atonement':

Those who are defenders of a Limited Atonement would include Berkhof, Crawford, Cunningham, Eldersveld, Haldane, Hodge, Lloyd-Jones, John Murray, Owen, Packer, Pink, Smeaton, Spurgeon, Stonehouse and Warfield (see Douty, page 163). To this list can be added John Gerstner, Gary Long, David N. Steele, Custis C. Thomas, W.E. Best, John MacArthur and many others. Though we strongly disagree with such men on this issue, we do not vilify them as Charles Spurgeon seemed to do with respect to those holding to unlimited atonement:

http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/4whom22.htm

 

[mlqurgw]

John Gill does a good job of showing that the ECF, while not explicitly saying " Christ died for the elect only" did allude to it in various ways in his " Cause of God and Truth." He deals specifically with many of them cited as teaching universal redemption and shows that they did teach a particular redemption though not in specific terms. Here is his introduction to the chapter on redemption:
CAUSE OF GOD AND TRUTH.

Part 4
Chapter 2—Of Redemption
Introduction​

Dr. Whitby says,[1] that the confirmation of the doctrine of universal redemption, from the suffrage of all antiquity, is sufficiently done by Vossius, in his Historia Pelagiana,where he lays down these two positions,
1. That "the sense of the ancient church was, that God wills the conversion and salvation of all."
2. That "it was the judgment of the ancient church, that Christ had provided an universal remedy for the universal fault of men, by paying a ransom of infinite value, lest any one should perish through the defect of it." He further observes, that this is more copiously done by Mr. Dally (he means Monsieur Daille) by producing the testimonies of the ancients from the first to the twelfth century; and concluding thus, "Certainly I do not find one in the first eight ages of Christianity that has said absolutely, and in terms, as is commonly said, that Christ died only for the elect." Here the Doctor rests, and would have his readers trust to and depend upon the conclusions and assertions of these two men. Vossius’s Pelagian History must be allowed to be a very considerable performance, and is the fund and magazine of antiquity for the Arminians. Dr. Twisse intended an answer to it, and in one of his books says,[2] he had entered upon it; but death I suppose prevented his design, at least it never was published; such a work, by so learned a hand, might have been of great service. But why should we trust to Vossius’s account of the judgment of the ancient church in this point, since Dr. Whitby himself would not trust him in another? namely, original sin; though he was so very positive as to say "The catholic church always so judged;"and the Doctor tells us,[3] that "upon an impartial search he found that all the passages he had collected were impertinent, or at least insufficient to prove the point." This gives no encouragement to depend on him. And inasmuch as the several passages cited by Vossius are also, with many others, produced by Monsieur Daille, I shall only attend to the latter, and to those only of the first four centuries; and though he observes, that in these and the four following ages, none ever said absolutely,and in express terms,that Christ died only for the elect;yet it does not follow, but that some might say it, in other terms and words equivalent, of the same signification, and which amounted to the same sense. It must be owned, that Monsieur Daille has collected a large number of testimonies indeed; but when it is considered, that multitudes of them are only expressed in Scripture language, and so capable of the same sense the Scriptures are; others regard men of all sorts, ranks, and degrees; others Jews and Gentiles; others the sufficiency of Christ’s death for all; and others, some general benefit by it, as the resurrection of the dead; their number will be greatly reduced, and very few left to be of any service to the cause for which they are brought; besides, it will be made to appear in the following Sections,that the ancients often describe the persons for whom Christ died by such characters as cannot agree with all men.
ENDNOTES:

[1]

Discourse, etc. p. 193; ed 2. 195; Postscript, p. 566; ed. 2. 543.

[2]​

​

Riches of God’s Grace, against Hord, part 1, p. 83.

[3]​

​

Preface to Discourse, etc. p. 4: ed. 2. p. 2.

Gill goes on to deal with 33 different men and their writings showing that they did indeed speak in such a way as to limit the atonement to specific people. You can read it here:

http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/gills_archive.htm#5
​

 

[heymikey80]

I am curious to know whether the docrine of limited atonement was taught by anyone before Calvin. I habve never heard of this doctrine being accpeted in the church before the 16th century.

The problem is that the doctrine has actually been rhetorically "rescoped" since Calvin's time. People (actual conservative theologians) have asserted that Luther held to a doctrine of unlimited atonement. At this point even Calvin can be quoted to believe in unlimited atonement.

It's just not true to the writers.

At dead-level best the church fathers didn't seriously consider the implications of what they were saying based on the concepts we're talking about. That may be true. When concepts are divided in unusual ways you're bound to attract unlikely advocates. But the confusion brought in by modern rhetoric is absolutely overwhelming. Every statement of "whole world" or "all the people" is brought in to buttress the foundation of unlimited atonement.

Let's get to the clear point of limited atonement. The actual meaning of the words "limited atonement" is this: not everyone was atoned-for. Agreement on this point is overwhelming among church fathers.

God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? "Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life." But what is God’s reply to him? "I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal." So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace. What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The chosen obtained it, but the rest were hardened Rom 11:2-7
​

It's interesting to think that so many have said this isn't explicitly stated in Scripture. But it is. And let's not vault to some equally opposite & invalid conclusion that is not Scriptural -- from "kill all the reprobate" to "I'm better than you" to "God's treating Israel this way (which would mean, if Calvinism were 'unfair', that God treated Israel 'unfairly') -- they aren't true either, Scripture rejects them too. But the statement is fairly straightforward. The chosen obtained it; the rest were hardened. And this is God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew.

It's critically important to realize, Calvin embraced (Calvin embraced) the universality of the Atonement in many aspects. The Atonement is shown to every human being we can reach with a summons to allegiance -- dependence on the New Caesar. Christ is King of the Universe. In the religious & political atmosphere of the First Century this is inescapable. And this idea is very much affirmed by Calvin. In fact it's essential to his position. Because if God had nothing more to give us than this summons, then God is no more involved in our lives than a distant Caesar ruling from Rome.

But of course He has more. He has His actual Spirit, a Person involved directly in our lives.

To Calvinists Christ is the Savior of mankind as well as the Savior of the chosen. When you start talking about the Atonement's extent, it's broad. But it is not saving everything from sin. It is not saving everyone from sin. It's saving the whole world -- it's not saving everything/one in the world.

Calvinists believe the Atonement of Christ is entirely effective in bringing about our redemption. In order to assert that everyone was atoned-for and remain a limited redemptionist, you must conclude that atonement is not entirely effective. If it doesn't bring the redemption it intends, it's not entirely effective. You must further conclude that the Atonement of Christ does not itself bring about our redemption. So then it's something else that brings about our redemption: independent faith and good works (Pelagianism), faith and an independent desire & intent for works (semi-Pelagianism), independent faith (freewill Arminianism), universal grace to have faith (but then the non-universal effect of this grace becomes the focus) (Wesley), dependent faith (arguably Arminius himself, Amyraut), or a mix ("I don't know what but it's not Calvinism").

On Calvinistic terms the Church Fathers are mixed, yes. But in present days the terminology is so badly blurred by the rhetoric that you could call anyone to your side as an advocate. You have to cut to the core of what you're asking, not throw out a label like "limited atonement" and ask why Augustine could be quoted against it.

The Calvinistic statement of Limited Atonement is that Christ died in order to save those chosen for salvation, and that this Atonement is intended by God and ultimately effective for saving them, alone. The Atonement has other effects, and some of those are indeed universal.

 

[Terrence_Theodore]

I am curious to know whether the docrine of limited atonement was taught by anyone before Calvin. I habve never heard of this doctrine being accpeted in the church before the 16th century.

I would argue that this doctrine's first mentions can be traced back to scripture and Christ who said..."I lay down my life for the sheep." The affirmation, "I lay down my life for the sheep" in and of itself, denounces the notion that he also laid down his life for non-sheep, or goats. Consider again Christ' words. "The son of man did not come to be serve, but to serve and give his life a 'ransom for many.'" This is hardly a sufficient enough response to prove the doctrine of particular redemption, I simply just wanted to say this in the hopes that it might provoke you to thought.

Consider Christ' atonement. What does it accomplish? I believe the answer to that question will shed some light on this doctrine, as it gets to the crux of the matter. For whom did Christ die - the world, i.e., everyone individually, or the world, i.e., some of all kinds of people (Jews and Gentiles)? If one could prove from scripture that Christ did NOT die for some people, then the idea of a universal redemption should be cast out; no matter how attractive it seems.

 

[Presbyterian Deacon]

Did anyone teach limited atonement before Calvin

I am curious to know whether the docrine of limited atonement was taught by anyone before Calvin. I habve never heard of this doctrine being accpeted in the church before the 16th century.

Yes. Jesus, Paul, Augustine

 

[JM]

Summa Theologiae (1a.23.5):

“The reason for the predestination of some and reprobation of others (praedestinationis aliquorum, et reprobationis aliorum) must be sought for in the divine goodness.... God wills to manifest his goodness in those whom he predestines, by means of the mercy with which he spares them; and in respect of others whom he reprobates, by means of the justice with which he punishes them. This is the reason why God chooses some (quosdam eligit) and reprobates others (quosdam reprobat).... Yet why he chooses some for glory and reprobates others has no reason except the divine will (non habet rationem nisi divinam voluntatem).”

 

[JM]

Gregory of Rimini (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[JM]

English Historical Documents 1327-1485 - Google Books

 

[cygnusx1]

looking for Augustine quotes I found this excellent page ;

Limited Atonement

 

[JM]

Gottschalk of Orbais : 9th Century Predestinarian?

 

[cygnusx1]

this page is one step closer to the answer but I don't know where the writer keeps his numbered quotes

Limited Atonement (3) « Heidelblog

 

[cygnusx1]

an interesting look at this subject and Martin Luther's view ;

Martin Luther Taught Limited Atonement « Strange BaptistFire

A Response to Dr. David Allen’s Presentation on Limited Atonement, Part 1a. The Historical Question in Regards to Martin Luther « Strange BaptistFire

 

[bricklayer]

The earliest forshadow of "limited atonement", to me,
is when God took only a rib from Adam,
and from it, made a bride, for Adam.
God takes only a part of Man, and from it, makes a bride, for Himself.

God created one man, and from him all men were made.
Jesus died for one church, one body, one people.
To a great extent, God treats all of humanity like one man,
from who He cuts out a part, and from that part He makes for himself one bride.

If this be the case, the author of Genesis would be the earliest to preach "limited atonement".

 

[Foghorn]

I am curious to know whether the docrine of limited atonement was taught by anyone before Calvin. I habve never heard of this doctrine being accpeted in the church before the 16th century.

Yes.
How far back do you want to go? Lets go back to Jesus. Jesus taught this.

 

[oscar615]

One quick thought on this. If Christ died for everyone, then he failed....