Christ bore the sin of many — or of all?

The reformed view of "the sin of many."

That wording, "the sin of many" can be found in Isaiah 53:12:

Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Often the defender of Calvinistic soteriology will point to this verse and others like it, and say, "See? Christ bore the sins of many, not of all." "Many is not all," they will say. The "many" for the reformed theologian is often equivalent to "the elect," or "his people," or other such constructions. The Puritan theologian John Flavel interpreted the "many" of Isaiah 53:12 as "the elect." I take the following quotation from his sermon on the covenant of redemption. Flavel says:

In this verse we have, 1. His work. * * * His work, which was indeed a hard work, to pour out his soul unto death, aggravated by the companions, with whom, being numbered with transgressors; the capacity in which, bearing all the sins of the elect, "he bare the sins of many"....

So Flavel equates bearing the sins of many with bearing the sins of the elect. About what we'd expect.

For Calvin, many sometimes means all

But John Calvin does not do what Flavel and the rest of the reformed community has done. Quite to the contrary, Calvin here equates bearing the sins of many with bearing the sins of all. My friend David has used a portion of Calvin's comment on this verse for his signature line in his emails:

I approve of the ordinary reading, that he alone bore the punishment of many, because on him was laid the guilt of the whole world. It is evident from other passages, and especially from the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, that "many" sometimes denotes "all."

The irony of this is piquant. Whereas most who call themselves Calvinists often read "all" as "many," Calvin, in this important verse, reads "many" as "all".

Odd hermeneutical rules and how to stop them

But there is a way out for the Calvinist. Those who are willing to impose odd hermeneutical rules in their quest to conform Calvin to their own image might say that in reading Calvin, the word "all" must never refer to all individual men; it must always refer to "all classes of men." "All" means "all men generally," by which they mean "all kinds" or "all sorts" — by which they mean some of all kinds or sorts — by which they mean not all. ( It is that easy to turn a positive statement into a negative one. It just requires the will to believe.)

It would certainly be an odd exegetical rule that universally changes "all" to "not all". But in this case — and this is the main point of this article — we have some assistance from the great man himself.

All means every one

Here is a little additional context for Calvin's quote, taken from his comment to Isaiah 53:12:

I have followed the ordinary interpretation, that "he bore the sin of many," though we might without impropriety consider the Hebrew word [Hebrew omitted - slc] (rabbim,) to denote "Great and Noble." And thus the contrast would be more complete, that Christ, while "he was ranked among transgressors," became surety for every one of the most excellent of the earth, and suffered in the room of those who hold the highest rank in the world. I leave this to the judgment of my readers. Yet I approve of the ordinary reading, that he alone bore the punishment of many, because on him was laid the guilt of the whole world. It is evident from other passages, and especially from the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, that "many" sometimes denotes "all."

Exclamation point!

Consider what this means for our interpretation of Calvin. In Isaiah 53:12, Calvin says that "many" means "all." And even if the word "many" be translated "great and noble," Calvin says that Christ is surety for every one of them — every one of the great and noble. Thus we have — by a simple, straightforward reading — determined that all in Calvin's comment to Isaiah 53:12 does not mean all classes, or all sorts, or all kinds; it means all individuals.

This has strong implications for our hermeneutics, especially against those who would impose that odd rule referred to above. It also has implications for our reading of Calvin's comment to 1Timothy 2:4, where he admittedly refers the passage to princes and rulers. Princes and rulers, yes — every one of them.

May I say exclamation point again?

Exclamation point!

Individuals or Classes? Calvin on 1Timothy 2:4-6

I offer this article as a supplement to the first article critiquing Roger Nicole's article entitled, John Calvin's View of the Extent of the Atonement. (Westminster Theological Journal 47 (1985): 197-225). I wish to address a point about Calvin's comment on 1Timothy 2:4 that may seem to some readers to have been omitted.

Classes of men vs. individuals in 1Timothy 2:4

In his comment to that verse, Calvin said, "God wishes that the gospel should be proclaimed to all without exception." In my previous blog post, I said that Calvin's statement shows his view that God has a universal love for mankind. Though I believe this to be true, there is a problem. In his comment to this verse, Calvin also said the following:

Hence we see the childish folly of those who represent this passage to be opposed to predestination. "If God" say they, "wishes all men indiscriminately to be saved, it is false that some are predestined by his eternal purpose to salvation, and others to perdition." They might have had some ground for saying this, if Paul were speaking here about individual men; although even then we should not have wanted the means of replying to their argument; for, although the will of God ought not to be judged from his secret decrees, when he reveals them to us by outward signs, yet it does not therefore follow that he has not determined with himself what he intends to do as to every individual man.

But I say nothing on that subject, because it has nothing to do with this passage; for the Apostle simply means, that there is no people and no rank in the world that is excluded from salvation; because God wishes that the gospel should be proclaimed to all without exception. Now the preaching of the gospel gives life; and hence he justly concludes that God invites all equally to partake salvation. But the present discourse relates to classes of men, and not to individual persons; for his sole object is, to include in this number princes and foreign nations.

This is certainly problematic for my position. If Calvin is not speaking here of individual men, but only of man as a class (as seems apparent from the quoted paragraphs), then there is no reason to see a universal love of God in this comment. According to this view of things, God may desire all nations (whether Jew or gentile) and all ranks of men (whether peasants or kings, male or female, bond or free) to hear the gospel call; but this may not mean that God desires all individuals to hear the gospel call.

Classes vs. individuals in Calvin's comment to 1Timothy 2:5

The matter becomes even more difficult for my position from a statement Calvin makes in his comment to the following verse:

And one Mediator between God and men 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.

Regarding these paragraphs from Calvin's comment to 1Timothy 2:5, Nicole says this:

It is not fair to Calvin to separate the last sentence from the remainder of the paragraph and to pretend on that basis that he advocates a universal atonement.

Nicole at 213. Agreed, provided we keep two points in mind. First, one might argue universal atonement from Calvin on other bases and from other passages. Second, though it may be unfair to separate one sentence from another in a paragraph, it would be equally unfair to pretend that the first sentence of this paragraph must govern all of Calvin's work as a sort of hermeneutical rule (viz., the word "all" in Calvin must always refer to all classes of men, never to all individuals. I do not suggest that Nicole has made such a rule).

Calvin often speaks of all the individuals of humanity. The interpretation of universalistic passages of this sort must not be burdened by unreasonable and woodenly applied maxims. Thus though this particular passage may be equivocal because of the presence of the "classes" vs. "individuals" comment, that should not unduly restrict our interpretation of other passages, though we should admit the possibility of such a particularistic interpretation where warranted.

Does God desire that the gospel be proclaimed to all individuals?

The universalistic interpretation of Calvin that I am most concerned with in the 1Timothy 2:4-6 context is this:

... God wishes that the gospel should be proclaimed to all without exception. Now the preaching of the gospel gives life; and hence he justly concludes that God invites all equally to partake salvation.

Calvin, Comment to 1Timothy 2:4. Are we warranted in saying that the gospel call should be given to all individuals indiscriminately, and that thereby God invites all equally to partake of salvation? Does this truly represent a universalistic wish, will, or desire in God as I claimed in my previous essay? On this point Nicole — and I agree with him — says this:

To this we reply in acknowledging readily that Calvin does indeed assert the propriety of, yea, the divine mandate for an indiscriminate call to salvation addressed to any and all human beings that may be reached by language. We furthermore believe that Calvin was right in line with Scripture, and that those who would restrict the call to the elect are mistaken.

Nicole at 213. This suggests a positive answer to our question. It does at least answer the question regarding the divine command: the gospel should be preached to all individuals without exception. I would add that this also means that —for Calvin, at least— God desires for all men to hear the gospel.

Calvin vs. Cunningham & Nicole

Roger Nicole wrote an article published in the Westminster Theological Journal in 1985 entitled, John Calvin's View of the Extent of the Atonement. Dr. Nicole's article has been published online at A Puritan's Mind, and I thank Dr. McMahon (and Dr. Nicole) for permission to quote from and link to that article.

I plan to critique the article at some length. Calvinists often cite Dr. Nicole as authority for the proposition that Calvin taught limited atonement, when it appears that nothing could be further from the truth. The corpus of Calvin's work abounds with evidence to the contrary. Dr. Nicole's arguments need to be examined and answered. I plan to proceed through Dr. Nicole's article paragraph by paragraph. I won't write about every paragraph, but I will highlight the arguments and attempt to answer them. The material that is purely bibliographic I will generally skip over unless there is a logical argument buried in it. For example, I may answer some of Dr. Nicole's critricisms of Kendall.

Early in the article, Dr. Nicole cites William Cunningham as one of the 19th-century defenders of the Calvin taught limited atonement position, and as perhaps the first to cite the Heshusius tract as proof of that position. (I have answered the alleged proof from Heshusius at some length in previous blog posts.) I begin my critique of Nicole's article with a review of Cunningham's arguments and Nicole's citation of them.

Did Calvin emphatically repudiate a universal saving will in God?

According to Dr. Nicole, Cunningham proved that Calvin did not teach unlimited atonement by two lines of reasoning.

William Cunningham's article, as is usual with this author, is a very solid and searching study. In addition to discussing the important quotation of Calvin noted above, Cunningham reasoned that Calvin's emphatic repudiation of a universal saving will and endorsement of election and reprobation as well as his particularistic interpretation of passages invariably appealed to by hypothetical universalists (1 Tim 2:4; 1 John 2:2) reflect a line of thought in which particular rather than universal redemption finds a fitting place.

Nicole's footnote 15 cites W. Cunningham, "Calvin and Beza," British and Foreign Evangelical Review 10 (1861) 641-702. Reprinted in The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation (Edinburgh: Clark, 1862) 398-402.

The first line of proof is Calvin's so-called "emphatic repudiation of a universal saving will." It always surprises me to see it alleged that Calvin denied a universal saving will. It is surprising because — as far as I can tell — he never denied it, and often asserted it. Where can this "emphatic repudiation" be found? If Calvin did emphatically repudiate the idea, then either Dr. Nicole or his cited authority should have provided the proof. Alas, neither Nicole nor Cunningham provide any quotations, information, or argument. Here's what Cunningham says on the matter:

That Calvin denied the doctrine of God's universal grace or love to all men, as implying some desire or intention of saving them all, and some provision directed to that object, is too evident to any one who has read his writings, to admit of doubt or to require proof.

* * *

[T]he fact of Calvin so explicitly denying the doctrine of God's universal grace or love to all men, affords a more direct and certain ground for the inference, that he did not hold the doctrine of universal atonement....

Cunningham, Reformers, 398, 399. Cunningham's fallacy is petitio principii, or simply begging the question. It was Cunningham's duty to provide evidence of his contention, but he failed — refused — to provide it. What is so ironic about Cunningham's evasion is that he himself unwittingly provides proof to the contrary not two pages later in his article, where he quotes Calvin's view on 1Timothy 2:4. Here it is, in the Latin Cunningham used:

Apostolus simpliciter intelligit nullum mundi vel populum vel ordinem a salute excludi, quia omnibus sine exceptione evangelium proponi Deus velit.

Cunningham, 400. Or, in English, "the Apostle simply means, that there is no people and no rank in the world that is excluded from salvation; because God wishes that the gospel should be proclaimed to all without exception." Omnibus sine exceptionie — "all without exception." Is this not precisely the universalistic wish — "desire or intention" — that Cunningham denied is present in Calvin's thought? In fact, it is very easy to find God's universal love or grace taught in Calvin's work. Cunningham's failure to bring forward some solid evidence to the contrary is not surprising.

Nicole cannot escape censure here as well. He ought to have produced evidence of the alleged emphatic denial —even though Cunningham did not — if he thought it existed. The rote and uncritical citation of old authorities can lead to a chain of error that extends as far as human credulity. Authority X says "black is white." Authority Y quotes authority X. Authority Z, who respects Authority Y immensely, quotes him as saying that Authority X has proved "black is white." Before you know it, a whole cult builds up based on the authority of well-respected men.

This sort of thing used to occur frequently in the world of chess. Chess literature abounded with ideas based on authority quoting authority, even though the original writer may have been utterly wrong. The advent of strong chess-playing computer programs, available to any rank amateur for a few dollars, has reduced the incidence of this sort of thing. The merest beginner can fire up his computer and actually check whether the world-renowned authority is correct in his analysis.

A similar phenomenon is occurring in historical theology. The old documents are becoming available to the dummies on the internet. We are checking.

To disprove Nicole's and Cunningham's contention, one need only look to the obvious commentary on John 3:16, where Calvin waxed eloquent on the love of God shown to the whole world in the advent of Christ. I quote only a small part:

And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.

Calvin, Commentary on John 3:16

Do particularistic interpretations of 1Timothy 2:4 and 1John 2:2 mean that all Calvin's interpretations must be particularistic?

The second argument made by Cunningham and echoed by Nicole is this: Calvin's particularistic interpretations of 1Timothy 2:4 and 1John 2:2 "reflect a line of thought in which particular rather than universal redemption finds a fitting place." (Nicole, at 201.)

On this second argument, Cunningham says the following:

The other consideration to which we referred, as affording some positive evidence, though not direct and explicit, that Calvin did not hold the doctrine of a universal atonement, is this, — that he has interpreted some of the principal texts on which the advocates of that doctrine rest it, in such a way as to deprive them of all capacity of serving the purpose to which its supporters commonly apply them. If this position can be established, it will furnish something more than a presumption, and will almost amount to a proof, that he did not hold the doctrine in question.

The flimsiness of this slip-shod argument is shocking. That Calvin held an interpretation of some passages (Cunningham cites only the two passages and Nicole provides nothing further) that is consistent with limited atonement is no proof whatsoever that Calvin held limited atonement or denied unlimited atonement.

First, it does not prove that Calvin held limited atonement, as Cunningham admits. He says, "Let it be observed, that our object is not to show, that we are warranted in adducing the authority of the great name of Calvin as a positive testimony in favour of the doctrine of particular redemption, — of a limited atonement...." (Cunningham at 400.)

And if Calvin's interpretation of these passages is consistent with limited atonement, it does not prove that his interpretation is inconsistent with unlimited atonement.

In fact, Calvin's interpretation of these passages is quite consistent with and often cited in favor of universalistic aspects of Christ's work. Calvin's comment on 1John 2:2 is often cited to show that Calvin approved of the formula sufficient for all, efficient for the elect. The comment on 1Timothy 2:4 contains the idea that God desires that the gospel be preached to all without exception.

Despite this obvious truth, Cunningham makes the bold claim that Calvin's position on those two passages "will almost amount to a proof, that he did not hold the doctrine in question." Nicole, following Cunningham, says that Calvin's interpretation of these passages "reflect a line of thought in which particular rather than universal redemption finds a place." (One could note the subtle shift of thought. Whereas Cunningham said that this line of reasoning shows that Calvin did not hold unlimited atonement, Nicole says that the line of reasoning reflects particularism rather than universalism — a significantly different idea, logically.)

A final point must be mentioned: if Calvin interpreted the two passages in a way suited to particularistic views, it does not mean that he had an agenda to interpret all such passages in that way. It may mean that for the sake of honesty he interpreted the passages in the way grammar, logic, and context demanded. If this be the case, must it necessarily follow that all such passages will be interpreted in the same way? For Calvin this is obviously not the case.

While making these meager connections, neither Cunningham nor Nicole deal with the strongly universalistic statements in Calvin. What of, for example, Calvin's statement in his comment to Romans 5:18?

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.

Calvin, Commentary on Romans 5:18

Cunningham's arguments are inadequate to his purpose, and Nicole's citation of Cunningham amounts to nothing more than an appeal to Cunningham's authority.

More to come

Roger Nicole on Calvin and Limited Atonement

I have started a series of blog posts critiquing Roger Nicole's article on Calvin's view of the atonement. The article is: Roger Nicole, John Calvin’s View of the Extent of the Atonement, Westminster Theological Journal 47 (1985) 197-225. You can find the article available online at A Puritan’s Mind.

If you wish to see a list of my articles critiquing Nicole, just click on this link.

The Heshusius Tract Proves Calvin Didn't Teach Limited Atonement

My thesis is that Calvin did not teach limited atonement — not the kind advocated by most modern Calvinists at least. This is proved by a reading of Calvin's tract against Heshusius. In previous blog posts, I went through the famous statement from the tract that supposedly proves that Calvin did teach limited atonement. (You know the one — "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?") My analysis shows that far from proving the point, Calvin's argument against Heshusius actually proves the opposite (Nicole to the contrary notwithstanding).

I would like to focus on a slightly different aspect of the Heshusius matter. My friends Tony Byrne and David Ponter have made much of the fact that the sincere offer of the gospel must be backed by a universal expiation. If the sin of all men was not borne by Christ on the cross, then the offer of the gospel to them must, of necessity, be empty of meaning.

I wish to consider this question in the setting of Calvin's theology of the Lord's Supper and draw inferences about Calvin's theology of the atonement from his theology of the Lord's Supper. (Another of my friends has alleged that no such inference may properly be made, but we shall see.)

The substantial presence of Christ in the elements

As we saw in examining the Heshusius tract, Calvin believed that Christ is substantially present in the elements of the Eucharist.

[I]t is declared in my writings more than a hundred times, that so far am I from rejecting the term substance, that I ingenuously and readily declare, that by the incomprehensible agency of the Spirit, spiritual life is infused into us from the substance of the flesh of Christ. I also constantly admit that we are substantially fed on the flesh and blood of Christ....

One should note that Calvin says not only that Christ is given to us in the Supper, but that Christ's flesh, his body and blood, is given to us in the Supper. Such is the mystery that Calvin treats of in his doctrine of the Lord's Supper — the substantial, but not material and local, presence of Christ's flesh in the elements.

I do not restrict this union to the divine essence, but affirm that it belongs to the flesh and blood, inasmuch as it was not simply said, My Spirit, but, My flesh is meat indeed; nor was it simply said, My Divinity, but, My blood is drink indeed.

The offer of Christ in the elements

Second, this presence of Christ in the Eucharistic elements is also an offer to believers and unbelievers alike to partake of the benefits of his atonement. I have three quotations from the tract to that effect. Quote number one:

Still [Heshusius] insists, and exclaims that nothing can be clearer than the declaration, that the wicked do not discern the Lord’s body, and that darkness is violently and intentionally thrown on the clearest truth by all who refuse to admit that the body of Christ is taken by the unworthy.

He might have some color for this, if I denied that the body of Christ is given to the unworthy....

Quotation number two:

It is indeed true, that contumely is offered to the flesh of Christ by those who with impious disdain and contempt reject it when it is held forth for food; for we maintain, that in the Supper Christ holds forth his body to reprobates as well as to believers....

And number three:

[I]n [the sacraments] accordingly we obtain possession of Christ, and spiritually receive him with his gifts: nay, he is certainly offered in common to all, to unbelievers as well as to believers.

In the Lord's Supper, Christ is presented as the life-giving sacrifice for sins

The third point in my argument is that according to Calvin, the Supper presents Christ as the lamb slain for our sins. The observance is not merely a memorial or a duty to be performed, but a picture of the gospel and an offer of the benefits of it. Because of the sacrifice that the Supper portrays, the sacrament gives life to all who partake in faith.

In this first quotation, Calvin shows that by partaking, believers are given spiritual life and are substantially fed through the elements. He says:

But it is declared in my writings more than a hundred times, that so far am I from rejecting the term substance, that I ingenuously and readily declare, that by the incomprehensible agency of the Spirit, spiritual life is infused into us from the substance of the flesh of Christ. I also constantly admit that we are substantially fed on the flesh and blood of Christ....

In this next quote, Calvin opposes Heshusius's insistence on the physical presence of Christ's body in the elements:

His [Heshusius's] expression is, that the very substance of the flesh and blood must be taken by the mouth; whereas I define the mode of communication without ambiguity, by saying, that Christ by his boundless and wondrous power unites us into the same life with himself, and not only applies the fruit of his passion to us, but becomes truly ours by communicating his blessings to us, and accordingly conjoins us to himself in the same way in which head and members unite to form one body.

Note carefully in this previous quote that Calvin makes a close connection between the observance of the Eucharist and the application of the benefits of the atonement. According to Calvin, the benefits of Christ's passion are applied through participation in the Supper. The communion observance communicates Christ's life to us. How fearful, then, the consequences of the neglect of or the exclusion from this observance. And is that not the point of church discipline —excommunication — which is named for the exclusion from the Lord's Supper?

Next, let's return to a quote already given above in part. Here Calvin answers Heshusius's charge that Calvin's doctrine fails to take into account that the unworthy are condemned for their failure to discern the Lord's body in the Supper:

He might have some color for this, if I denied that the body of Christ is given to the unworthy; but as they impiously reject what is liberally offered to them, they are deservedly condemned for profane and brutish contempt, inasmuch as they set at nought that victim by which the sins of the world were expiated, and men reconciled to God.

Again take note that in their contempt for the Supper, the wicked set at nought the lamb of God. So close is the connection between Calvin's doctrine of the Lord's Supper and his doctrine of the atonement.

The Supper is not a sham offer

Here I have only one quote from the tract:

In our Agreement it is twice or thrice, distinctly stated, that since the testimonies and seals which the Lord has given us of his grace are true, he, without doubt, inwardly performs that which the sacraments figure to the eye, and in them accordingly we obtain possession of Christ, and spiritually receive him with his gifts....

This idea is not popular in the reformed community in America. It is certainly not popular among the Baptists and apparently not so popular among most Presbyterians. But Calvin plainly taught that the promises of the sacraments are more than merely signs or symbols.

In this article I have limited myself to quotations from the tract against Heshusius, but all of the arguments here could have been sustained from sentiments expressed in the Institutes or Commentaries. The reader might consult Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 17. Or take a look at Calvin's commentary on 1Corinthians 11.

Limited atonement antithetical to Calvin's doctrine of the Lord's Supper

Let me state this in a somewhat controversial manner, noting that, ironically, I am myself a Baptist. Apart from the Federal Vision sympathizers, most Presbyterians have a Baptist view of the Lord's Supper. This may be due, in part, to the incongruity between the common doctrine of limited atonement and Calvin's view of the Supper. How could one hold to Calvin's view of the Supper and seriously preach limited atonement as it is commonly preached?

Imagine a Sunday church service on an occasion when the Supper is to be observed. Imagine this particular Sunday coinciding with a sermon on limited atonement. Imagine the irony, then, when the minister presents Calvin's doctrine of the Lord's Supper: that Christ's crucified flesh is substantially present in the Supper; that in offering the elements Christ offers himself to all; that those who by faith feed on the elements feed on Christ; that in partaking of the Lord's Supper, "by the incomprehensible agency of the Spirit, spiritual life is infused into us from the substance of the flesh of Christ."

Concluding thoughts

I take my final quote from Calvin's Institutes:

For these are words which can never lie nor deceive - Take, eat, drink. This is my body, which is broken for you: this is my blood, which is shed for the remission of sins. In bidding us take, he intimates that it is ours: in bidding us eat, he intimates that it becomes one substance with us: in affirming of his body that it was broken, and of his blood that it was shed for us, he shows that both were not so much his own as ours, because he took and laid down both, not for his own advantage, but for our salvation. And we ought carefully to observe, that the chief, and almost the whole energy at the sacrament consists in these words, It is broken for you; it is shed for you.

Institutes 4.17.3 The idea that there must be a universal expiation behind a universal gospel offer is appealing at an intellectual level, but it is also susceptible to evasions. Evasion is not really possible (at least it becomes more difficult) when the doctrine is given tangible expression in the Lord's Supper. Here is Christ really; here is a real offer, an offer to believer and unbeliever alike; here is the application of the benefits of the atonement; here is the reality of a table set, a feast spread; here is the banquet to which all are invited. Calvin's doctrine of the Lord's Supper seems utterly incompatible with the kind of limited atonement often held in Calvinistic circles today.

Technorati Tags: Lord's Supper, Communion, Eucharist, Heshusius, John Calvin, Calvinism, TULIP, limited atonement, unlimited atonement