- Apr 5, 2003
- 6,713
- 469
- 47
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
The following article is by Dr. Roger Nicole and can be found on the A Puritan's Mind website.
This topic has received considerable attention in the recent past, perhaps in view of R. T. Kendalls very controversial book Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649.1 An effort is made here to summarize the debate and to provide a brief evaluation.
It is often statedand with considerable proprietythat Calvin did not write an explicit treatment concerning the extent of the atonement, in fact did not deal with this precise issue in the terms to which Reformed theology has been accustomed. It must be owned, of course, that the question had received some attention before Calvin. Notably Gottschalk in the ninth century had given express support to definite atonement2 and the scholastics had discussed the topic and advanced a partial resolution in asserting that Christs death was sufficient for all men and efficient for the elect.3 Calvin alludes to and endorses this distinction but views it as insufficient for a proper analysis of 1 John 2:2.4 Nevertheless a full discussion of the scope of the atonement is not found in Calvins writings, and the assessment of his position in this area has been varied.
Certain other Reformed theologians, contemporaries of Calvin or flourishing in the late sixteenth or the beginning of the seventeenth century, expressed a clear endorsement of definite atonement: e.g. Peter Martyr, H. Zanchius, T. Beza, J. Piscator, W. Ames, R. Abbot.5 As far as we know, they did not assert that they were conscious of differing with Calvin on this score, nor did Calvin take issue in writing with any of those who formulated the view during his life-time.
One of the earliest writers to claim that Calvin espoused universal atonement was Moyse Amyraut (15961664) who in his Eschantillon de la doctrine de Calvin touchant la predestination6 quoted certain passages from Calvins commentaries in support of his own position on universal atonement. Amyrauts friend and supporter Jean Daillé (15941670) later published some 43 pages of excerpts from Calvins works which he deemed in line with universal grace.7 A number of these excerpts relate to the design of the atonement, but it is really amazing to observe how most of these quotations are lacking in cogency with respect to the precise status questionis. Some, indeed, appear actually counterproductive, especially if replaced in their original context.8 Amyrauts opponents, notably Pierre DuMoulin (15681658),9 André Rivet (15731651),10 and Frederic Spanheim (16001649)11 did not fail to respond with explanations of Calvins texts which showed them to be compatible with particularism. Furthermore they quoted other texts of Calvin, especially from his Traité de la predestination,12 in which the design of the atonement and Gods elective purpose are seen as inextricably related.
In July 1861, Principal William Cunningham published in the British and Foreign Evangelical Review an article on Calvin and Beza in which he examined certain areas where it is claimed Beza differed from Calvin.13 One of these is the extent of the atonement, and Cunningham appears to be the first who referred to the following text of Calvin as reflecting a presumption of definite atonement. I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ which was not crucified for them, and how they can drink the blood which was not shed to expiate their sins.14
This passage, found in a treatise on the Lords Supper destined to refute the fiery Lutheran Tilemann Heshusius, is rendered stronger by the fact that Heshusius, in good Lutheran fashion, did believe in universal atonement and therefore would not find Calvins argument persuasive at this point. But Calvin was so strongly oriented here that he appears to have forgotten that Heshusius would not share his presuppositions!
continued...
This topic has received considerable attention in the recent past, perhaps in view of R. T. Kendalls very controversial book Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649.1 An effort is made here to summarize the debate and to provide a brief evaluation.
It is often statedand with considerable proprietythat Calvin did not write an explicit treatment concerning the extent of the atonement, in fact did not deal with this precise issue in the terms to which Reformed theology has been accustomed. It must be owned, of course, that the question had received some attention before Calvin. Notably Gottschalk in the ninth century had given express support to definite atonement2 and the scholastics had discussed the topic and advanced a partial resolution in asserting that Christs death was sufficient for all men and efficient for the elect.3 Calvin alludes to and endorses this distinction but views it as insufficient for a proper analysis of 1 John 2:2.4 Nevertheless a full discussion of the scope of the atonement is not found in Calvins writings, and the assessment of his position in this area has been varied.
Certain other Reformed theologians, contemporaries of Calvin or flourishing in the late sixteenth or the beginning of the seventeenth century, expressed a clear endorsement of definite atonement: e.g. Peter Martyr, H. Zanchius, T. Beza, J. Piscator, W. Ames, R. Abbot.5 As far as we know, they did not assert that they were conscious of differing with Calvin on this score, nor did Calvin take issue in writing with any of those who formulated the view during his life-time.
One of the earliest writers to claim that Calvin espoused universal atonement was Moyse Amyraut (15961664) who in his Eschantillon de la doctrine de Calvin touchant la predestination6 quoted certain passages from Calvins commentaries in support of his own position on universal atonement. Amyrauts friend and supporter Jean Daillé (15941670) later published some 43 pages of excerpts from Calvins works which he deemed in line with universal grace.7 A number of these excerpts relate to the design of the atonement, but it is really amazing to observe how most of these quotations are lacking in cogency with respect to the precise status questionis. Some, indeed, appear actually counterproductive, especially if replaced in their original context.8 Amyrauts opponents, notably Pierre DuMoulin (15681658),9 André Rivet (15731651),10 and Frederic Spanheim (16001649)11 did not fail to respond with explanations of Calvins texts which showed them to be compatible with particularism. Furthermore they quoted other texts of Calvin, especially from his Traité de la predestination,12 in which the design of the atonement and Gods elective purpose are seen as inextricably related.
In July 1861, Principal William Cunningham published in the British and Foreign Evangelical Review an article on Calvin and Beza in which he examined certain areas where it is claimed Beza differed from Calvin.13 One of these is the extent of the atonement, and Cunningham appears to be the first who referred to the following text of Calvin as reflecting a presumption of definite atonement. I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ which was not crucified for them, and how they can drink the blood which was not shed to expiate their sins.14
This passage, found in a treatise on the Lords Supper destined to refute the fiery Lutheran Tilemann Heshusius, is rendered stronger by the fact that Heshusius, in good Lutheran fashion, did believe in universal atonement and therefore would not find Calvins argument persuasive at this point. But Calvin was so strongly oriented here that he appears to have forgotten that Heshusius would not share his presuppositions!
continued...