Answering Roger Nicole on 1Timothy 2:5 (part 3)

To briefly recapitulate: my first two arguments against Nicole's reading of Calvin on 1Timothy 2:5 consisted of examining the allegedly qualifying language of class vs. individual that Calvin used in his commentary on the verse. Whereas Nicole would have us read Calvin as speaking of some of all kinds of men, this doesn't seem to work when applied to two actual cases that appear in the immediate context: the preaching of the gospel and prayer.

What we saw was that if we applied Nicole's some of all kinds logic to Calvin it gives us awkward -- or simply impossible -- readings. In the first case we saw that we would have to read Calvin as saying that the gospel ought to be preached to all kinds of men rather than to all individuals (see Calvin on 1Timothy 2:4). This is awkward if we are saying that Calvin taught elsewhere that we should preach the gospel to all men, excluding none. Nicole says explicitly that Calvin taught that the gospel should be preached to every individual, and even that Calvin's universalistic language should be understood in just that way.

Second we saw that using Nicole's analysis we would have to read Calvin as saying that we ought to pray for some of all kinds of men (excluding some, wicked Nero for example, as John Gill did), whereas Calvin taught an idea diametrically opposed to that (see Calvin on 1Timothy 2:1-2).

All of all classes

The third argument I would make is that in analyzing Calvin's language of "class" v. "individual" [genera v. persona], though Calvin may not be speaking of individuals, he has in mind the exclusion of no individuals.

Consider Calvin's treatment of those for whom we are to pray. He says that we are to pray for "all mankind." Here is his comment on 1Timothy 2:1:

That, above all, prayers be made. First, he speaks of public prayers, which he enjoins to be offered, not only for believers, but for all mankind.

~Calvin, Comm. 1Timothy 2:1

Notice the categories: believers v. unbelievers, which categories make up "all mankind." Calvin urges us to include the ungodly in our prayers:

Some might reason thus with themselves: “Why should we be anxious about the salvation of unbelievers, with whom we have no connection? Is it not enough, if we, who are brethren, pray mutually for our brethren, and recommend to God the whole of his Church? for we have nothing to do with strangers.” This perverse view Paul meets, and enjoins the Ephesians to include in their prayers all men, and not to limit them to the body of the Church.

* * *

Paul, in my own opinion, simply enjoins that, whenever public prayers are offered, petitions and supplications should be made for all men, even for those who at present are not at all related to us.

~Calvin, Comm. 1Timothy 2:1

If we are to pray for all men, we cannot pray for them individually, but as a class. To answer the childish sophistry that asks whether I suggest getting out the phone book and start praying for "all men," beginning at the A's, I answer that clearly the apostle is speaking of classes, not of individuals. And I think that's exactly what Calvin has in mind here. Calvin (if not the apostle) would have us pray for all men, excluding none; not praying for them all by listing all particular men, but including all generally by reference to the relevant class. (I do not suggest neglecting to mention individuals by name, especially government leaders, but I do suggest the inclusion of all by reference to relevant classes. For example, one might pray for "all my neighbors," or "all residing in Phoenix." There is no need to resort to the phone book.)

It is equally important to see that Calvin's conception of "all men" does not exclude any individual. In his commentary on 1Timothy 2:4, Calvin combines his language of classes with the exception of no one:

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. That God wishes the doctrine of salvation to be enjoyed by them as well as others, is evident from the passages already quoted, and from other passages of a similar nature. Not without good reason was it said, “Now, kings, understand,” and again, in the same Psalm, “I will give thee the Gentiles for an inheritance, and the ends of the earth for a possession.” (Psalm 2:8-10.)

In a word, Paul intended to shew that it is our duty to consider, not what kind of persons the princes at that time were, but what God wished them to be. Now the duty arising out of that love which we owe to our neighbor is, to be solicitous and to do our endeavor for the salvation of all whom God includes in his calling, and to testify this by godly prayers.

~Calvin, Comm. 1Timothy 2:4

In reading that quote, notice that the language of classes is combined with universalistic language: "all without exception," "all equally," and "all whom God includes in his calling." That this includes the non-elect should be obvious because Calvin speaks of those to whom the preaching of the gospel comes, all whom God "includes in his calling" (i.e., the external call). And it is for the unbelieving as well as the believing, for it is not our duty to consider "what kind of persons the princes at that time were, but what God wished them to be." That is, Calvin would have us pray for bad princes as well as good. In his comment to 1Timothy 2:2, he mentions that these magistrates might be such as "were so many sworn enemies of Christ." But we are to pray for them.

A little consideration of Calvin's comment to verses 1 through 4 of 1Timothy 2 will show that Calvin's language of classes is not intended to exclude any individual because he is not one of the elect. We are to pray for them all and preach the gospel to them all.

This View Confirmed from Isaiah

I have mentioned in a previous blog post that Calvin elsewhere says that Christ "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." (See Calvin on Isaiah 53:12. This is also where Calvin says that "many" sometimes means "all.") If we're speaking of classes (as, in this case, the class consisting of kings, rulers, and the like), then it doesn't help Nicole to say that Calvin is speaking of classes v. individuals if the relevant class includes the most wicked sworn enemies of Christ and includes "every one" of the relevant class. It doesn't help Nicole, for this class would clearly include some who are not elect; and Nicole's entire purpose in pointing to the notion of classes is to make the exclusion of the non-elect possible. Clearly Calvin is not excluding any person by suggesting the idea of thinking in terms of classes rather than individuals. Calvin's idea of classes excludes no person.

This View Confirmed from 1Timothy 2:5!

Interestingly enough, Nicole's view of Calvin is refuted in the very passage he cites for support. Here is some of Calvin's comment to 1Timothy 2:5:

Accordingly, whatever diversity might at that time exist among men, because many ranks and many nations were strangers to faith, Paul brings to the remembrance of believers the unity of God, that they may know that they are connected with all, because there is one God of all — that they may know that they who are under the power of the same God are not excluded for ever from the hope of salvation.

~Calvin, Comm. 1Timothy 2:5

All those ranks and nations (classes!) are all "under the power of the same God," and therefore "are not excluded for ever from the hope of salvation." What could be clearer? Calvin excluded none from the class of those who are given the hope of salvation.

If you want to see what excluding individuals would look like, consult John Gill on this passage. You'll find nothing of Gill's like in Calvin's theology.

Answering Roger Nicole on 1Timothy 2:5 (part 2)

For whom are we to pray?

The second argument for not reading Calvin's "all" as "some of all kinds," is Calvin's view of whom we are to pray for. In 1Timothy 2:1, we are commanded to pray for all men. All men? Or all sorts of men? Let's do a comparison of John Gill, a hyper-Calvinist, with Calvin.

Here's a snippet of Gill's comment on verse 1:

[G]giving of thanks, as well as prayers, are to be made for all men; but certainly the meaning is not, that thanks should be given for wicked men, for persecutors, and particularly for a persecuting Nero, or for heretics, and false teachers, such as Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom the apostle had delivered to Satan. But the words must be understood of men of all sorts, of every rank and quality, as the following verse shows.

~Gill, Commentary on 1Timothy 2:1

Now compare that treatment with Calvin's:

And thanksgivings. As to this term, there is no obscurity; for, as he bids us make supplication to God for the salvation of unbelievers, so also to give thanks on account of their prosperity and success. That wonderful goodness which he shews every day, when “he maketh his sun to rise on the good and the bad,” (Matthew 5:45,) is worthy of being praised; and our love of our neighbor ought also to extend to those who are unworthy of it.

2 For kings He expressly mentions kings and other magistrates because, more than all others, they might be hated by Christians. All the magistrates who existed at that time were so many sworn enemies of Christ; and therefore this thought might occur to them, that they ought not to pray for those who devoted all their power and all their wealth to fight against the kingdom of Christ, the extension of which is above all things desirable. The apostle meets this difficulty, and expressly enjoins Christians to pray for them also.

~Calvin, Comm. 1Timothy 2:1-2

If we compare the two approaches, Gill's and Calvin's, we see a diametrically opposite view with respect to wicked rulers. Calvin says to pray for them, and Gill says not to. And notice that Gill justifies, in part, his treatment of wicked Nero by saying that we are not enjoined to pray for all men, but "men of all sorts." Calvin could have used this logic as well, but didn't.

There are two things to be noticed here: first, Calvin might have used the same justification that Gill did for saying that we need not pray for wicked Nero. He might have said that we are not enjoined to pray for all men, just all sorts of men. He certainly had the analysis suitable to the task:

Hence we see the childish folly of those who represent this passage to be opposed to predestination. * * * They might have had some ground for saying this, if Paul were speaking here about individual men.... * * *

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.

~Calvin, Comm. 1Timothy 2:4

Calvin set up the possible distinction between all individuals and all sorts of individuals. Admittedly, the Calvin quote above is from verse 4, not verse 1; but the reasoning is identical and if it applies in verse 4, it would be equally applicable to verse 1. But Calvin did not use that justification. Rather, Calvin said that our prayers ought to include the wicked rulers.

This comparison ought to show us that Calvin did not mean the same thing as Gill when he distinguished between "individuals" on the one hand, and "people" or "rank" on the other. For Calvin, the idea of "all sorts" excluded no one, while Gill used the idea of "all sorts" to exclude wicked Nero.

Answering Roger Nicole on 1Timothy 2:5 (part 1)

I want to revisit an argument that Roger Nicole made in his rebuttal to the first argument of the non-continuity (I would like to call them the “historic Calvinists” -- the fellows and gals who say that Calvin did not teach limited atonement) guys.

All doesn’t mean all

Nicole argues that there is a way of understanding Calvin’s use of universalistic language (“all” and such like) that doesn’t compromise his particularistic views: when Calvin says “all,” he doesn’t necessarily mean “all.” According to Nicole, Calvin can mean “all classes” when he says “all.” And what Nicole means by “all classes” is some of all classes. Some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and so on. For Nicole, Calvin’s universalism is some from all kinds of men. Here’s Calvin’s language from his commentary to 1Timothy 2:5:

The universal term ‘all’ must always be referred to classes [genera] of men but never to individuals [persona]. It is as if he had said, ‘Not only Jews, but also Greeks, not only people of humble rank, but also princes have been redeemed by the death of Christ.’ Since therefore he intends the benefit of His death to be common to all, those who hold a view that would exclude any from the hope of salvation do Him an injury.

~Calvin, Comm. 1Timothy 2:5, quoted by Nicole, at 212.

"Pretense" of universalism

So look at the last sentence of the quotation from Calvin above: “Since therefore he intends the benefit of His death to be common to all....” It seems straightforward. But if we take this sentence in isolation from the paragraph, Nicole argues, we have done Calvin a disservice.

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.

The problem is that we might read Calvin’s sentence ... legitimately, it would seem ... in this way: since therefore he intends the benefit of His death to be common to all sorts of persons....

But there are strong arguments for not seeing Calvin’s talk of classes to mean some of all classes; rather we might read Calvin as speaking of all of all classes.

The preaching of the gospel to all

Everyone except the hyper-Calvinists agree that the gospel ought to be preached to all. And Nicole agrees that Calvin ought to be read as saying exactly that:

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.

Nicole, at 213.

Consider this juxtaposition of statements from Calvin:

Who wishes that all men may be saved. Here follows a confirmation of the second argument; and what is more reasonable than that all our prayers should be in conformity with this decree of God?

And may come to the acknowledgment of the truth. Lastly, he demonstrates that God has at heart the salvation of all, because he invites all to the acknowledgment of his truth. This belongs to that kind of argument in which the cause is proved from the effect; for, if “the gospel is the power of God for salvation to every one that believeth,” (Romans 1:16,) it is certain that all those to whom the gospel is addressed are invited to the hope of eternal life.

~Calvin, Comm. 1Timothy 2:4

It looks like Calvin is saying that the gospel ought to be preached to every creature. But consider that the two paragraphs following those just quoted contain this language:

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.... * * *

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.

~Calvin, ibid.

Would it be pretense, then to assert that on the basis of this passage from Calvin, he holds that the gospel ought to be preached to every man? I know of none of the pro-continuity scholars who would say that we ought to take Calvin’s comment in 1Timothy 2:4 to mean that the gospel ought to be preached to all kinds of men rather than all individuals. If any of my readers has quotations on this point from Helm, Rainbow, or others, I would love to hear of them. Feel free to post quotations or references in the comment box.

Is it pretense to say that Calvin holds to a universal (without qualification) preaching of the gospel based on his comment to 1Timothy 2:4? I hardly think we could call it pretense. Yet Nicole has alleged that it would be pretense to draw a similar conclusion in light of Calvin’s remarks on 1Timothy 2:5! What difference in language would justify such a difference in conclusion? I am reminded of a friend’s call for publicly justifiable hermeneutical rules. You can’t just make up ad hoc rules of interpretation from whole cloth. There ought to be some discipline and accountability in interpreting ... even if it is scholarly writing that we’re interpreting.

Is it legitimate to read Calvin as saying here that the gospel ought to go out to all men? I think it is. But if that is the case, then we have to have another look at Nicole’s idea of some from all classes. Because we have established that it is possible for Calvin to mean all from all classes when he speaks of classes and not individuals. Nicole’s argument from 1Timothy 2:5 no longer looks so compelling.

I have three more brief arguments on this question, which I will post later this week (d.v.)

The Free Offer Incompatible with Limited Atonement

In Roger Nicole’s review of Calvin’s doctrine of limited atonement, Nicole lists several arguments of the non-continuity advocates (R. T. Kendall, Curt Daniel, et al) and offers rebuttals of those arguments. Here is his treatment of the second argument of the discontinuity folks (those who say Calvin did not teach limited atonement). The argument relates to the free offer of the gospel:

In asserting, as he does repeatedly, the legitimacy of a universal, indiscriminate offer of salvation to any and to all, Calvin, they urge, presupposes a universal atonement as the logical necessary foundation for such a call.

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. But the proposition that the prerequisite for an indiscriminate call is a universal provision, which is the base of the whole argument, appears to us palpably and demonstrably false. Most of the well-meant offers and invitations, human as well as divine, are not grounded in coextensive provision! All that is really requisite for a well-meant offer is that, if the terms of the offer be complied with, that which was offered will in fact be delivered. This is precisely what occurs with the gospel (John 6:37), but no one fulfills the terms except those whom the Father draws (John 6:44, 65). Whether or or not God has made a provision for those who do not come has nothing to do with the sincerity of the offer. No solid argument can therefore be built in favor of universal atonement on this basis.

~Nicole, John Calvin’s View of the Extent of the Atonement, Westminster Theological Journal 47 (1985) 213-214. Available online at A Puritan’s Mind.

Nicole represents his opponents as saying this: “Calvin must have taught unlimited atonement, because he taught the free offer of the gospel.” The free offer, it is argued, presupposes provision for all.

Nicole answers that “most of the well-meant offers and invitations, human as well as divine, are not grounded in coextensive provision!” Nicole adds an exclamation mark, presumably to emphasize the obvious point his opponents have missed. But one is hard-put to explain exactly what Nicole means here. What divine offers does Nicole have in mind? Nicole believes, apparently, that there are some number of divine invitations (beside the offer of salvation?) that are not backed up by adequate provision. Puzzling.

Regarding human offers, we normally associate sincere offers with a knowledge of some reasonable ability to meet one’s obligations under such an offer. And we would normally greet the failure to live up to those obligations with a certain amount of moral disdain. Indeed, the law often requires that merchants (to use one example) back up their offers with adequate provision -- and provides remedies for those offers that are not so backed up. But despite the limitation (or frailty) of human offers, we need not associate those limitations with God’s offers.

Nicole argues further that in order for an offer to be sincere, it need merely be true that every instance of compliance with the terms of the offer be met with the promised benefits. Since the elect alone are they who will respond to the offer of the gospel, the provision need be only for them. But is that really the measure of sincerity? Since the offer is indeed made to many who will not respond, can we hide the fact that many who are offered salvation in the gospel are in fact completely outside of its provision? It seems out of keeping with the message proclaimed that there are many for whom no provision is made, though the offer is urged upon them.

But all this is quite irrelevant. For the question is not whether limited atonement (or a certain kind of limited atonement) is consonant with the free offer of the gospel, but whether the free offer of the gospel in Calvin’s theology is consonant with strict limited atonement.

I submit that there are two aspects of Calvin’s teaching that are utterly incompatible with a strict doctrine of limited atonement. (By “strict doctrine of limited atonement,” I mean that doctrine that says that there are some men for whom Christ has made no expiation. The reader should bear in mind that Calvin obviously taught that there are some men who will never enjoy the benefits of the atonement. The elect alone are they who will enjoy those benefits.)

Calvin’s doctrine of faith

Calvin’s doctrine of faith is such that the promiscuous proclamation of the gospel is incompatible with limited atonement.

We shall now have a full definition of faith, if we say that it is a firm and sure knowledge of the divine favor toward us, founded on the truth of a free promise in Christ, and revealed to our minds, and sealed on our hearts, by the Holy Spirit.

~Institutes, 3.2.7

This is where Kendall’s critique is so devastating. If it is true that Calvin taught (as Kendall proves) that faith is the subjective assurance of God’s favor (or “paternal indulgence”), then calling those to faith for whom no reconciliation has been provided is tantamount to proclaiming a falsehood. How can we proclaim that God would be reconciled to men when He would not be? For Calvin, faith is the subjective assurance that God is -- in and because of Christ -- propitious toward us. But if no propitiation has been made for some, then to proclaim to them the command to believe the gospel is to command them to believe something that is not and could not be true. (One wonders how “unbelief” could be a sin in such a case.)

The answer (given by some) that the gospel ought to be preached to all because “we don’t know who the elect are” is no answer -- at least not to this problem. When we preach the gospel, we know that some will never believe. But it could never help them (nor do credit to the gospel message) to tell them something that is not true. And how could calling on them to believe a falsehood cut off any excuse? (See Calvin on John 3:16.) Sensibility to this problem is reflected in certain strains of hyper-Calvinism, where the gospel is not proclaimed promiscuously precisely because it is held that God is not propitious to all men. How would Nicole reconcile the idea of God’s being irreconcilably at enmity with certain men with the idea of proclaiming to them that God is reconciled to them?

The answer of most high Calvinists (and presumably Nicole) might be that God is indeed not reconciled with the non-elect at all. He is quite at enmity with sinners. He does not show himself to be reconciled, but ready to be reconciled with all who will trust in Christ. Since the reprobate will never trust Christ, the proclamation to them of the terms of pardon is not inconsistent or insincere.

But if Kendall is right, then Calvin taught that the gospel is the proclamation of God’s favor, love, and mercy, which not to believe is the very unbelief that God will condemn.

This ... reveals why Calvin feels so strongly about a universal expiation by Christ’s death; Christ’s death is that to which we look because it is the ‘pledge’ that God loves us. Calvin does not direct us to God’s secret decree; it is ‘Christ alone’ to Whom ‘faith ought to look’. For ‘we are to learn to fix our eyes on the death of Christ, whenever our salvation is concerned’.

Had Christ died only for those whom God had chosen by His secret decree, then, it would obviously cease to be a pledge to all.

~R. T. Kendall, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649, p. 14.

Compare this statement from Calvin:

Every promise which God makes is evidence of his good will. This is invariably true, and is not inconsistent with the fact, that the large benefits which the divine liberality is constantly bestowing on the wicked are preparing them for heavier judgment. * * * Therefore, when the Lord by his promises invites us not only to enjoy the fruits of his kindness, but also to meditate upon them, he at the same time declares his love. Thus we are brought back to our statement, that every promise is a manifestation of the divine favor toward us.

~Institutes 3.2.32

Kendall’s book is known for its treatment of Calvin’s doctrine of the atonement, but it ought to be known for its treatment of Calvin’s doctrine of faith. Kendall’s treatment lays waste to many modern views of Calvin, as well as many modern views of faith.

Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper

Since we are speaking of the free offer of the gospel, there is one special application of that offer that must be mentioned here. It is Calvin’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.

Calvin saw the Lord’s Supper as a picture of the gospel, the elements representing Christ’s body and blood. Christ’s body is exhibited to us “as if Christ were placed in bodily presence before our view, or handled by our hands.” For Calvin, Christ’s body and blood are really, (spiritually and mysteriously, not corporeally) present in the elements. The sacrament, which should always be accompanied by the preaching of the word, which explains the sacrament, is a gracious offer of forgiveness. Whenever the gospel is preached, it proclaims God’s good will, love, and mercy.

It is one thing to allege (as Nicole has done) that the free offer of the gospel is compatible with limited atonement in the abstract. It is quite another to say that the free offer of the gospel (to believer and unbeliever alike) in the offer of Christ’s body and blood through sacrament is compatible with a limitation of that very body and blood to the elect alone.

Nicole’s rebuttal here does not really address Kendall’s argument, which is that Calvin’s doctrine of faith is incompatible with limited atonement. And though Nicole didn’t have the opportunity to address this point in his critique of Kendall, I would add that Kendall’s argument is greatly strengthened by understanding Calvin’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, where Calvin really did see an offer of the gospel in the picture of Christ’s body and blood.

I’ve quoted these words before, but they bear repeating:

To all these things we have a complete attestation in this sacrament, enabling us certainly to conclude that they are as truly exhibited to us as if Christ were placed in bodily presence before our view, or handled by our hands. 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 of the sacrament, consists in these words, It is broken for you: it is shed for you. It would not be of much importance to us that the body and blood of the Lord are now distributed, had they not once been set forth for our redemption and salvation.

~Institutes 4.17.3 (emphasis added).