John Calvin—A man who didn’t invent the acronym TULIP (and I am not sure about his feelings on the "L")

                                           Limited Atonement 

Definition: Christ’s death actually paid for the sins of those whom He knew would ultimately be saved (i.e. the elect)

Did John Calvin teach this doctrine?

Yeah…I don’t know about this one.

Here are a couple excerpts from his commentaries: 

Commentary on Romans 5:18

"Paul makes grace common to all men, not because it in fact extends to all, but because it is offered to all. Although Christ suffered for the sins of the world, and is offered by the goodness of God without distinction to all men, yet not all receive him." 

Commentary on I Timothy 2:5

"This clause is of a similar import with the former; for, as there is one God, the Creator and Father of all, so he says that there is but one Mediator, through whom we have access to the Father; and that this Mediator was given, not only to one nation, or to a small number of persons of some particular rank, but to all; because the fruit of the sacrifice, by which he made atonement for sins, extends to all. More especially because a large portion of the world was at that time alienated from God, he expressly mentions the Mediator, through whom they that were afar off now approach. The universal term all must always be referred to classes: of men, and not to persons; as if he had said, that not only Jews, but Gentiles also, not only persons of humble rank, but princes also, were redeemed by the death of Christ. Since, therefore, he wishes the benefit of his death to be common to all, an insult is offered to him by those who, by their opinion, shut out any person from the hope of salvation." 

Commentary on I John 2:2

"Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretense extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself. Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation. They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ [63] suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world. For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only true salvation of the world." 

So did Calvin believe in the doctrine of limited atonement? Based on his remarks of I John 2, I would say "YES". Yet if all I had was his comments on Romans 5:18, I would probably say "NO". 

My answer is this: In my opinion, Calvin was not clear on this issue, therefore, I will ask him someday in Heaven. 

________________________________________________________________

The main issue is this:  For whom did Christ die?

There are two legitimate answers:

1) Everyone or those who 2) He chose to place His special love upon (i.e. the elect)

If your answer is everyone, then you are faced with two options: 

You believe in universalism. 

You believe in unlimited atonement.

Most readers will quickly say (and probably defiantly), “I am NOT A UNIVERSALIST! I do not believe everyone will be saved!”

Good. Neither do I.

So that means that you believe in the doctrine of unlimited atonement. 

What is the doctrine of unlimited atonement?

Definition: When Christ was judged on the Cross for sins, He paid for the sins of the entire human race—not just for the elect.

You might say, “I am fine with that” or even “scripture affirms this”.

Okay…..but realize this also means that…..

You are concluding that the Father poured His wrath on the Son for the sins of non-elect, who are the individuals that are going to willfully reject Him as Savior.

Your answer: Again….I am okay with that. This reveals the greatness and wideness of Jesus’ sacrifice and also emphasizes man’s culpability in rejecting Christ’s substitutionary work on the cross for them.

Fair enough…..one last thing though…..

You are concluding that the non-elect are judged only for the sin of unbelief, not all of the rest of their sins such as murder, rape and pedophilia (since those sins were paid for by Christ on the cross).

Well…I don’t know about that.

Please understand I am not trying to be a jerk or attack the individuals that believe in the doctrine of unlimited atonement. Many men whom I respect as Christian pastors, authors and theologians hold to this view. Furthermore, all of them would assert this is what the bible teaches (i.e. unlimited atonement).

Here is what I believe: I believe in the doctrine of limited atonement.

If I am being honest, I am able to argue more simply for the doctrine of limited atonement with theological arguments, rather than with some complex exegetical arguments.

At this point, someone will accuse me of placing a theological system above scripture. Or maybe they will accuse me of not allowing scripture to speak on its own terms.

They would appropriately ask, “What about 1 John 2:2?”

1 John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

Doesn’t this verse say clearly….THE WHOLE WORLD?

I hear you.  Oh….and by the way, I admit that this text is the strongest argument for unlimited atonement.

Yet D.A. Carson’s commentary on this verse is compelling and (in my opinion) the clearest explanation I have ever read,

“As far as I can see, a text such as 1 John 2:2 states something about the potential breadth of the Atonement. As I understand the historical context, the proto-gnostic opponents John was facing though of themselves as an ontological elite who enjoyed the inside track with God because of the special insight they had received. [Footnote 2: I have defended this as the background, at some length, in my forthcoming commentary on the Johannine Epistles in the New International Greek Testament Commentary (NIGTC).] But when Jesus Christ died, John rejoins, it was not for the sake of, say, the Jews only or, now, of some group, gnostic or otherwise, that sets itself up as intrinsically superior. Far from it. It was not for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world. The context, then, understands this to mean something like “potentially for all without distinction” rather than “effectively for all without exception” – for in the latter case all without exception must surely be saved, and John does not suppose that that will take place.”

In other words, the context of I John helps tip the scale back on the side of “limited atonement”.

Final Thoughts:

1.     This is NOT an issue to separate on or argue about.

Notice I didn’t say this issue wasn’t important, rather I said it is not a primary issue (or even secondary in importance). The Bible says relatively little about the extent of the atonement, therefore, I believe it is unwise and possibly harmful to “walk where Angels dare to tread” as the maxim goes.

2.     Practically, no matter what view of the atonement you hold to, it is ultimately irrelevant in regards to evangelism, church membership and Christian fellowship. 

Deut. 29:29 is to be invoked here:

Deuteronomy 29:29 "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.

This verse helps us understand the difference between the secret will of God and the revealed will of God.

The revealed will of God (i.e. the will that is revealed in scripture and that all people must obey) is that we are commanded to evangelize indiscriminately to everyone in the world.

So is the person you are witnessing to one of the elect? Who knows?

The identity of the elect is located in the secret will of God. Therefore, that since knowledge belongs to God, it is simply a doctrine we affirm and leave it to Him.

3.      God really does love the world (i.e. every single person).

Some people conclude that if limited atonement is correct, then God doesn’t really love the world (i.e. every person in the world), rather He loves only the elect.

In other words, if the "world" means the elect in every nation as it does in I John 2:2, then does the "world" mean the same thing in John 3:16?

My answer is no. The world (in John 3:16) refers to a general love as Creator towards His creation.

It is important to understand that this love is different than His special love to His chosen. For example, I love my children in a different way than I love my enemies, but I still love them. 

The primary way that God loves the non-elect is by bestowing His common grace (i.e. government, conscience and the withholding of divine judgment) on those who will reject Him. 

Furthermore, I would also argue that God loves the non-elect through the universal reconciliation initiated by Christ's death on the cross (Col. 1:20). 

In other words, regenerated Christians function as lights in the world, which gives "pockets of kingdom comfort" that is often enjoyed by unbelievers (i.e. the impact of William Wilberforce and the abolition of slavery). 

At the end of the day, I am much more staunch on the T, U, I and P (though TUIP just doesn't have the same ring to it). 

***Next blog post I will deal with the "I" of TULIP.