Institutes 3.1.1 Christ Suffered for the Sins of the Human Race - Part 2

I'm continuing the previous post on Roger Nicole's interpretation of Calvin's language in Institutes 3.1.1. Calvin wrote:

And the first thing to be attended to is, that so long as we are without Christ and separated from him, nothing which he suffered and did for the salvation of the human race is of the least benefit to us.

Institutes 3.1.1

Nicole's argument

Nicole's argument regarding Calvin's language runs as follows:

Calvin's language parallels very closely the usage of Scripture. (See for instance Rom 5:13; 8:32; 1 Cor 15:22; 2 Cor 5:14; Heb 2:9; 1 John 2:2). Neither the Scripture nor Calvin can be fairly interpreted to teach universal salvation, but the passages advanced as supporting universal atonement simply do not stop there. It is of course legitimate to distinguish, as Calvin clearly does, between impetration and application, but it is improper to separate these, since they always go together. The choice, therefore, is not between universal atonement and definite atonement as properly representative of Calvin's theology, but rather between universal salvation and definite atonement.

Nicole, 218.

Nicole adds in a footnote:

The crux of the matter resides in the fact that Christ's impetration involves the gift of the Holy Spirit to secure repentance and faith in those whom God intended to save. Thus salvation does not occur apart from appropriation, but appropriation is seen by Calvin as a gift of God rather than a performance by the creature. Human beings thus are seen as responsible for their sinful rejection of Christ, when offered, but only the Spirit, whose intervention was secured in the atonement, can lead a sinner to repent, believe and accept the proffered salvation. See Calvin's Calvinism, 164 (OC 8.335).

Nicole, 218, footnote 98.

Impetration v. application

So to Nicole's way of thinking, in Biblical and Calvinistic theology, impetration leads necessarily to application. That is, the extent of the impetration must be coextensive with the extent of application.

We know how the argument might go from scripture (the high Calvinist interpretation of Romans 8:32, being the mainstay). But how would the argument go in Calvin's theology? There is no direct statement from Calvin that would serve the purpose.

In fact, Calvin's statement in the Institutes cannot be pressed into the imagined mold. There is no hint in this quote from the Institutes, nor in any other place in Calvin's work, of the work of the Holy Spirit being co-extensive with Christ's impetration. That being the case, Nicole's argument fails.

The dilemma: universal salvation or definite atonement

As to the imagined dilemma -- universal salvation or definite atonement -- the dilemma disappears when one recognizes that impetration and application need not always go together. That is, in fact, the question in dispute. Obviously if impetration and application always are co-extensive, then limited atonement is a logical and obvious necessity. But if they are not co-extensive, then some sort of universal atonement becomes a possibility. Calvin having distinguished between impetration and application, as in Institutes 3.1.1, his theology does not logically preclude some form of universal atonement.

Bible language/Calvin language

And finally I would address Nicole's argument regarding Calvin's language. It closely parallels the Bible, says Nicole. Agreed. Neither Scripture nor Calvin can be fairly interpreted to teach universal salvation. Agreed. But the passages (what passages?) "simply do not stop there." Nicole's vague statement seems to be saying this: that the Bible passages that would purportedly teach universal atonement must fairly be seen to teach universal salvation if they teach any universality at all. Thus they teach either universal salvation or no universality at all. And it being the case that Calvin's language parallels Biblical language, his use of universal language in the atonement context must also be viewed as teaching either universal salvation or no universality at all.

Having seen the argument spelled out, its falsity is also obvious. To evaluate Calvin's language, we must consult Calvin, not the Bible.

For example, Nicole would have us see Romans 5:18. So let's take that as an example. That verse, in isolation, might plausibly be interpreted to support universal salvation. But only a venal or incompetent interpreter would give it such an import. That being the case, one must ponder how the words "even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life" should be interpreted. There must be some qualification of one sort or another.

Does that mean, therefore, that Calvin's use of the phrase "all men" (or some equivalent expression) ought to be qualified in the way we interpret the phrase when we see it in Romans 5:18? The notion is absurd. One must interpret Calvin's language by reading Calvin, and interpret Biblical language by reading the Bible.

In interpreting Romans 5:18, Calvin says that Christ "suffered for the sins of the whole world...." Should we interpret Calvin's expression "whole world" in the same way that we interpret "all men" in Romans 5:18? Using Nicole's rule, we sure ought to. But then what do we make of the rest of Calvin's sentence? It goes: "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.." This creates problems for Nicole's Bible/Calvin language rule. Because Calvin is speaking of a "whole world," all of whom are offered the benefits of Christ. This "whole world" is such a world that "all do not receive him."

Any sensible reader would conclude that Calvin's phrase "whole world" cannot refer to the elect of the whole world. That being the case, there is either some discontinuity between Calvin's language and that of the Bible, or else Romans 5:18 really refers to "all men" without qualification. In either case, Nicole's argument goes pfffft. I suggest that Nicole could not reasonably interpret "all men" in 5:18 in the same way that he interprets "whole world" in Calvin's commentary on 5:18.

And I would add still further, (going back to our question about interpreting Calvin's statement in Institutes 3.1.1), that since we are dealing with Calvin's language in the Institutes, not in a commentary (where we would expect to have close symmetry of meaning), Nicole's Bible/Calvin language rule has even less force and applicability. What Calvin means by "human race" in the Institutes must be divined from the plain meaning of words and sensible interpretation.

And just in case you're wondering, there is no dilemma for me: both Calvin and Romans 5:18 refer to all men (really all) and the whole world (including all men). We just have to understand that though Christ suffered for all and is offered to all, out of God's goodness to all, yet all do not receive him. Simple and sensible.

Response to a critic of Impetration v. application

A critic has written a response to my previous article Impetration v. application. You can find the critique at this link, and I invite you to read the critique and feel free to engage me or the author of the critique on the subject.

I note first that the critic has labeled me a "neo-Amyraldian." The critic doesn't know my views of Amyraut; he just wants a handy disapprobatory label. I am Amyraldian only in that Amyraut thought himself a follower of Calvin; I say, "me too." I somehow doubt that is the meaning my critic intends.

Relevancy of Romans 5:18

My critic has said that Romans 5:18 is "not germane" to the impetration v. application question. One wonders what kind of passage my critic would consider "germane." (His comment is ironic given the irrelevant passages offered up by the critic himself!) It is true that the passage does not go on at length about the matter. But the distinction between impetration and application is important to Calvin's argument in explaining the verse. Calvin specifically speaks of Christ's sacrifice and the enjoyment of the benefits of it. He further distinguishes the groups involved; those ("the world") for whom Christ suffered on the one hand and those who "receive him" on the other. If there is a world for whom Christ suffered and to whom he is offered who yet do not receive him, there must be some degree of separation in Calvin's mind between impetration and application.

The statement that this passage is not germane to the question is puzzling.

The alleged "inseparable" link

My critic refers to Calvin's commentary on Romans 8:34, alleging proof of the inseparable link between impetration and application. Yet nothing germane to the question is found there.

In reviewing Calvin's comment to 8:34, it should be noted that Calvin is arguing for the assurance of the godly, not the mass of humanity. Here is Calvin on Romans 8:31:

31. What then, etc. The subject discussed having been sufficiently proved, he now breaks out into exclamations, by which he sets forth the magnanimity with which the faithful ought to be furnished when adversities urge them to despond. And he teaches us in these words that with the paternal favor of God is connected that invincible courage which overcomes all temptations.

Calvin, Comm. Romans 8:31.

Calvin speaks in the following verses of believers: "they who possess him," "the godly," the faithful," "children of God," etc. For believers, then, paternal favor gives assurance. The love of God is here expounded by Calvin (explaining Paul) as being such as to give "that confidence which banishes all anxieties and fears."

There is no mention here of unbelievers, reprobate, or the like. Calvin's argument is that believers can feel assurance because the love of God is amply shown to us in the death of Christ. But what does that tell us about God's love for the ungodly? It tells us nothing.

It is possible (indeed, it is common in Calvin) to assert the love of God for believers (or the elect) on the one hand, and yet maintain the goodness and love of God for unbelievers on the other. My readers have seen the proof of this too many times to require additional proof. Again, one need only look at the masthead to see sufficient proof. God out of his goodness offers salvation to all. For Calvin, the sending of Christ, the suffering of Christ, and the offer of salvation in Christ are for all and demonstrate God's love to all.

Christ's eternal intercession

My critic refers to this phrase in Calvin's commentary to Romans 8:34:

But we must not measure this intercession by our carnal judgment; for we must not suppose that he humbly supplicates the Father with bended knees and expanded hands; but as he appears continually, as one who died and rose again, and as his death and resurrection stand in the place of eternal intercession, and have the efficacy of a powerful prayer for reconciling and rendering the Father propitious to us, he is justly said to intercede for us.

Calvin, Comm. Romans 8:34

My critic cites the Institutes (3.20.20) to the same effect. It ought to be sufficient to point out that both the Commentary and the Institutes speak of the manner of Christ's intercession, not the objects of that intercession. Calvin is denying that Christ kneels, pleading with outstretched hands. As opposed to this imagined pleading posture, Calvin says Christ's death is a sufficient and eternal intercession for us. Calvin is expostulating on the "powerful prayer" of Christ's sacrifice to disabuse us of any notion of suppliant pleading. Calvin is not here saying that Christ's intercession must inevitably extend to all those for whom he died ... though that is the way my critic reads him.

We also must recognize that (for Calvin) Christ intercedes for believers, not for unbelievers. This being the case, we have not gained anything by showing that Christ intercedes for believers; we already know that from Calvin. What the critics have yet to explain is how Calvin can speak of a world for whom Christ suffered and yet do not receive him. We still are faced with the necessity of acknowledging some distinction between believers on the one hand and those, on the other hand, for whom Christ suffered though they do not receive him.

My critic says, "Calvin is clear (elsewhere, as well as here) that the intercession is specific to the elect. Calvin is essentially saying that Christ intercedes for us by dying for us." Well, Calvin certainly is clear, though my critic has managed to misread him anyway. Calvin does not here at all limit the intercession to the elect (though he may elsewhere). But more importantly, the manner of Christ's intercession does in no way prove that all for whom Christ died will certainly receive the benefits of Christ's death.

The argument from logic

My critic makes a logical argument, supposedly showing that we must read Calvin as teaching limited atonement. Here is the argument, quoting from my critic's blog:

The Amyraldian and Arminian views essentially allege that God is already propitious toward all mankind. If Calvin held such a view, then knowledge of God's propitiation would not be a ground of assurance of salvation, since God is also propitious (according to the Amyraldians and Arminians) to everyone, even those in hell.

Source

If Calvin believed that Christ is "already propitious toward all mankind," then knowledge of God's favor could not be assurance, for God would have been propitious toward all those in hell ... so it is alleged.

One hardly knows what to say to such a statement. This kind of argument will, of course, be enough to persuade many high and hyper-Calvinists. But it is very bad. Is there nothing to distinguish those in hell from those not in hell apart from the death of Christ? The difference for Calvin is, of course, the application of the benefits of the atonement.

But whether my critic's argument works or not is completely irrelevant to reading Calvin. One can make an argument that such and such ought to follow from such and such principle. But that is not a safe guide for reading a writer of weighty philosophical theology. One must look at the words themselves. Especially in this case, where we have a strong backdrop of explicit statements to oppose the "argument." Against Calvin's many clear universalistic statements, we are offered a flawed argument, supposedly requiring that Calvin must be read in some way as to negate those myriad clear statements.

Now I believe I am reading Calvin properly ... (I am, as the reader of good sense will agree) ... but it would be very bad reading and very bad argumentation to say that Calvin ought to be read as teaching a universal atonement because otherwise he would be expounding a view that deprives believers of assurance. I really believe that the high/hyper view deprives believers of assurance, but I would never argue that Calvin should be read in such and such a way because of the consequence of that argument. Arguments about what Calvin meant must be rooted in the language found in Calvin.

What my critic has proposed is both bad logic and bad hermeneutics.

John Calvin on Romans 5:18

This is one of my favorite quotes from Calvin's universalist statements. This is from John Calvin's Commentary on Romans 5:18 (the link goes to one of my previous blog posts where one can read the quote in a larger context and get more of my thoughts on the subject):

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.

Justification is "propounded" (i.e., offered or set forth) to all, but not in reality "extended" to all. That is, all men are offered justification, but not all men are actually justified. That's Calvin's meaning here.

Calvin explains that this is so "for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world...." No question about the meaning of that, is there? It's not out of context, and it isn't denied by anything in the quote itself. Calvin is asserting this: "Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world...."

Notice the parallelism between Christ's suffering for all on the one hand and the indiscriminate offer to all on the other hand. The "all" here must be really "all," because the suffering is for "the whole world" and the offer is "indiscriminately to all." The ideas explain and reinforce one another. And it isn't "the world of the elect," because some of those for whom Christ died and to whom he is offered, "do not receive him."

It couldn't be clearer.

R L Dabney's View - Expiation is Not Limited! - Part I

R L Dabney , one of the great American Presbyterian theologians of the 19th century, was certainly no Amyraldian. There are (at least) two sections in his Systematic Theology opposing the doctrine of Amyraut. And yet Dabney makes this rather startling assertion: "Expiation is not limited." (Systematic
Theology, Banner of Truth, 1985, p. 528.)

How can a man who holds to TULIP (as Dabney plainly does) make a statement which seems on the face of it so antithetical to the central point? How exactly does this work? The question is a difficult one and will require us to put aside prejudice and emotion, at least for a time. I propose to make an attempt to explain Dabney’s answer to this question in a series of short essays.

We must start with definitions — especially since Dabney makes such a big deal of them. This is the hard part; but it is critical and will greatly repay the tedious work.

Atonement — Dabney does not like this word as descriptive of Christ’s work. Dabney gives credence to that old saw that "atonement" can be defined as "at-one-ment." (I used to scoff at this notion until Dabney taught me to behave myself.) That is, atonement — for Dabney — has a proper synonym in "reconciliation." (id, p. 503.)

Satisfaction — Instead of "atonement" as a general descriptive term for Christ’s work for sinners, Dabney perefers the word "satisfaction." He prefers it because it has been commonly used in reformed theology, and because it is general enough to include both Christ’s active and passive obedience. (id.)

Expiation — I shall quote Dabney directly: "Expiation is the sacrificial and satisfactory action, making the offended Judge propitious to the transgressor." (p. 505.) It seems to me — biased observer though I am — that most evangelicals use "atonement" to mean what Dabney means here by "expiation."

More on this tomorrow. I shall end with a quote from John Calvin. This is from his commentary to Romans 5:18: "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."


Technorati Tags: dabney, limited, atonement, john, calvin