John Calvin on 1John 2:2 - Kendall's "Out Of Context" Quotation

Back to my defense of R. T. Kendall

It is time to return to my critique of Roger Nicole’s criticism of R. T. Kendall. For the sake of reference, one may find Nicole’s critique at this link: John Calvin's View of the Extent of the Atonement. (The essay was originally published in Westminster Theological Journal 47 (1985) 197-225.)

Having made arguments from logic (which I have answered in previous posts) Nicole now takes aim at Kendall’s use of material from Calvin:

Kendall devotes two pages to discussing Calvin’s view of the extent of the atonement. Here he quotes largely the same passages of Calvin we have encountered earlier, [footnote 35] one of which is so wrested from its context as to appear to have a meaning opposite to that which Calvin explicitly delineated.” [footnote 36]

WTJ 47, at page 205. First, as to the question what Calvin said on the subject of the universality of the atonement, I trust that the material available at Calvin and Calvinism has put that question beyond controversy. At this point, only an academic would continue to insist that Calvin taught limited atonement.

As to Nicole’s allegation that Kendall “so wrested” a quote from Calvin “from its context” as to make it mean the opposite of Calvin’s explicit intent, I propose to examine that briefly.

The dispute involves this sentence from Calvin’s Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God,, 148: “It is also a fact, without controversy, that Christ came to atone for the sins of the whole world.” Kendall cites this sentence as evidence of Calvin’s universalism. Nicole, on the other hand, criticizes Kendall, as “wresting” the quote from its context. Here’s Nicole’s footnote:

Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, 148. This passage refutes Georgius’ interpretation of 1 John 2:2. “John does indeed extend the benefits of the atonement of Christ, which was completed by His death, to all the elect of God throughout what climes of the world soever they may be scattered. But though the case be so, it by no means alters the fact that the reprobate are mingled with the elect in the world. It is also a fact, without controversy, that Christ came to atone for the sins of the whole world. But the solution of all difficulty is immediately at hand in the truth and fact that it is whosoever believeth in Him that shall not perish, but shall have eternal life. For our present question is, not what the power or virtue of Christ is, nor what efficacy it has in itself, but who those are to whom He gives Himself to be enjoyed. Now if the possession of Christ stands in faith, and if faith flows from the spirit of adoption, it follows that he alone is numbered of God among His children who is designed of God to be a partaker of Christ. Indeed, the evangelist John sets forth the office of Christ to be none other than that of gathering together all the children of God in one by His death. From all which we conclude that although reconciliation is offered unto all men through HIm, yet, that the great benefit belongs peculiarly to the elect, that they might be gathered together and be made together partakers of eternal life.” Calvin’s Calvinism 165-66 (OC 8.336). By quoting only the sentence in italics, Kendall violated Calvin’s intent.

“Out of context”?

The “out of context” allegation occurs routinely in debate. But having made the allegation, Nicole is obligated to follow up with something to prove the point. Nicole completely fails.

Nicole does provide a section of Calvin’s context; but what does it show? There is nothing in the context to mitigate the force of Calvin’s statement. And Nicole doesn’t provide any argument ... just the quote from Calvin.

In fact, the quote from Calvin clearly substantiates Kendall’s view of the matter. It is perfectly clear that Calvin did in fact believe that Christ had died for the sins of the whole world, in part because he goes to some length to explain how this could be. His explanation provides a solution to that “difficulty.” And having attempted a solution, it shows that he really believed the statement that creates the difficulty.

A look at the solution that Calvin provides further proof to support Kendall. Calvin says that though Christ has died for the whole world, not all believe in him and it is they alone who shall have eternal life. The question, says Calvin, is not the power or efficacy of Christ’s work in and of itself, but the application of the “great benefit” of the atonement, which “belongs peculiarly to the elect.” Calvin distinguished between the intrinsic value of Christ’s work and those who should benefit from it.

This, of course, is exactly what most four-point Calvinists would say: Christ died for all, but only the elect enjoy the benefits of Christ’s work.

Universal intent v. particular intent

This analysis of the situation does not do full justice to either the problem or Calvin’s treatment of it. The question -- this often comes up as one of the preliminary issues in the discussion of limited atonement -- is not the value of Christ’s atonement considered in itself (cf. Calvin’s statement of the “present question” in the quote above). The question is, rather, what is the intent of God in the sacrifice of Christ. The limitation, it is held, is in the intention, not in the value of Christ’s work.

Yes. But the distinction between intrinsic value and intent does not touch the critical distinction some of us would make. Specifically we would point to a distinction between God’s universal intention on the one hand and God’s particular intention on the other. Calvin speaks to this:

From all which we conclude that although reconciliation is offered unto all men through Him, yet, that the great benefit belongs peculiarly to the elect, that they might be gathered together and be made together partakers of eternal life.

Calvin, supra.

Notice the universal intent -- reconciliation “offered unto all men” -- contrasted with the particular intent -- the great benefit which “belongs peculiarly to the elect.” If one would understand Calvin’s universalism, one must at least understand and acknowledge this diverging of divine intentions for the expiation.

God's promise as grounds for assurance

I was reading the other day in Chronicles ... really ... and I noticed a verse in a new light.

For thou, O my God, hast told thy servant that thou wilt build him an house: therefore thy servant hath found in his heart to pray before thee.

I Chronicles 17:25. Now compare this to Calvin's statement about faith.

For it were of no avail to us to know that God is true, did He not in mercy allure us to himself; nor could we of ourselves embrace his mercy did not He expressly offer it. “I have declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation: I have not concealed thy loving-kindness and thy truth. Withhold not thy tender mercies from me, O Lord: let thy loving-kindness and thy truth continually preserve me” (Psa_40:10,Psa_40:11).

Institutes 3.2.7. Calvin says that knowledge of God would avail us nothing did we not know of the merciful promises of God. David expresses a similar sentiment. Because God had promised him a house, he found the fortitude to ask God for His blessings. Calvin goes on to say:

It were presumptuous in us to hold that God is propitious to us, had we not his own testimony, and did he not prevent us by his invitation, which leaves no doubt or uncertainty as to his will.

The revelation of God's merciful intentions toward us is the grounds on which we can have hope.

Nicole v. Kendall - Is Universal Atonement Sufficient for Assurance?

I am returning to a critique of Nicole’s arguments against R. T. Kendall’s thesis regarding Calvin. Kendall has said that Calvin’s theology saw assurance as of the essence of saving faith. And Kendall argues that since assurance is of the essence of saving faith, Calvin must have believed in some form of universal atonement. One can only have assurance of God’s interest in him if God has evidenced that interest in some way. For Calvin and for Kendall, the supreme evidence of God’s interest in the individual sinner is Christ’s work on the cross.

Nicole, of course, rejects the notion:

The close connection posited by Kendall between universal atonement and the assurance of faith must also be challenged, for universal atonement is neither necessary nor sufficient for assurance. It is not necessary since my understanding of how the work of Christ affects others is not essential for a perception of how it affects me. It is not sufficient since on Kendall’s showing, all covered by the atonement will not be saved; assurance, if it is to be reliable, needs to be grounded in something that actually makes a difference between the saved and the lost.

Nicole, John Calvin's View of the Extent of the Atonement, Westminster Theological Journal 47 (1985) 197 at 204-205.

We have already examined the question of the necessity of universal atonement for assurance; now we turn to the question of the sufficiency of universal atonement for assurance.

A recent comment by Sean Gerety actually makes the same argument that Nicole has made, i.e., that one can have assurance of salvation only if Christ’s atonement actually saves all those for whom it is made. Nicole says that an atonement worth trusting must “actually [make] a difference between the saved and the lost.” Gerety says that if anyone for whom atonement is made actually suffers in hell, then their sins remain unatoned for and this makes “the promise of salvation in Christ somewhat dubious.”

As Tony has pointed out in that same comment thread, Gerety has not clarified his meaning for the word “atonement.” Charles Hodge complained of this lack of clarity in the common use of the word:

While the verb to atone thus means to expiate and to reconcile by expiation, the substantive means, either the reconciliation itself, or the means by which it is effected. This latter sense is not a Scriptural usage of the word, but is very common in theological writings. Thus when we speak of the atonement of Christ, of its necessity, efficacy, application, or extent, we mean Christ’s work, what He did to expiate the sins of men. This ambiguity of the word necessarily gives rise to more or less confusion.

Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. ii., 469. When Gerety refers to atonement, he refers (apparently) generally to Christ’s work, its application, and its effects, lumping these concepts together as if they need not be distinguished. But when I speak of a universal atonement, I do not refer to the application of the benefits of the atonement to the elect, nor do I speak of the actual reconciliation that takes place when men believe the gospel. When I speak of universal atonement, I refer to Christ’s work, i.e., his expiation of the sins of mankind, but not of the application of the atonement or its benefits to a particular individual, and not of the reconciliation that follows faith in Christ.

Nicole’s argument is less ambiguous, though perhaps more problematic for its clarity. Nicole said of the relationship of universal atonement to assurance:

It is not sufficient since on Kendall’s showing, all covered by the atonement will not be saved; assurance, if it is to be reliable, needs to be grounded in something that actually makes a difference between the saved and the lost.

When Nicole speaks of assurance, he means assurance of salvation, whereas Calvin spoke of assurance of God’s love. Thus for Calvin, assurance is logically prior to faith, while for Nicole, faith is logically prior to assurance.

If, like Nicole, we think of assurance as assurance of salvation, then according to Nicole’s scheme, we can be assured of salvation only if the atonement saves all for whom Christ suffered. But why must this be so? It makes as much sense to say that the atonement must save all to whom it is offered as to say that it must save all for whom Christ suffered. There does not appear to be a necessary logical connection between a limitation in the extent of the atonement and the consequent assurance of the trusting sinner. The limitation, if anything, presents obstacles to assurance.

The argument that Nicole is making really amounts to this: a universal atonement is not sufficient to inspire confidence because it doesn’t work for some people. But we must keep in mind that the salvation offered in Christ is rejected or neglected by those who remain unsaved. Their refusal to believe does not make God’s promise or Christ’s work less trustworthy. Does the refusal of the drowning man to embrace the life-preserver make it unworthy of trust for the drowning woman?

As I said in my reply to Gerety, the idea that God will not keep his promise to save all who embrace Christ or that God will not see Christ’s work as sufficient for the trusting sinner is really a species of unbelief. This unbelief is not excused on the grounds that God has shown himself merciful to all.

Does assurance of salvation come from self-examination? Conclusion

This is the conclusion of the previous blog post on the necessity of universal atonement to assurance of salvation. I offer this post with a certain amount of fear and trepidation. I feel certain of my ground in the reading of Calvin, but I stand open to correction on the radical implications this could have for the doctrine of faith. If Kendall is right (and I am inclined to think he is), Calvin's doctrine of faith has been seriously mauled by subsequent developments in protestant Christianity. I offer this for your consideration, but I urge a degree of caution in reading. Take what I say here with a grain of salt as it applies to the Christian doctrine of faith.

Is it possible to know one is saved? That is the question that all Christians desire to know the answer to. For Calvin, certainty was not only possible, it is the essence of saving faith. For Calvin, doubt is a species of unbelief. This is because faith does not look to self, but to Christ alone.

First, we should see that for Calvin, we see certainty of our salvation — of our election — only in Christ Jesus.

But if we are elected in him, we cannot find the certainty of our election in ourselves; and not even in God the Father, if we look at him apart from the Son. Christ, then, is the mirror in which we ought, and in which, without deception, we may contemplate our election. For since it is into his body that the Father has decreed to ingraft those whom from eternity he wished to be his, that he may regard as sons all whom he acknowledges to be his members, if we are in communion with Christ, we have proof sufficiently clear and strong that we are written in the Book of Life. Moreover, he admitted us to sure communion with himself, when, by the preaching of the gospel, he declared that he was given us by the Father, to be ours with all his blessings (Rom_8:32). We are said to be clothed with him, to be one with him, that we may live, because he himself lives. The doctrine is often repeated, “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life (Joh_3:16). He who believes in him is said to have passed from death unto life (Joh_5:24). In this sense he calls himself the bread of life, of which if a man eat, he shall never die (Joh_6:35). He, I say, was our witness, that all by whom he is received in faith will be regarded by our heavenly Father as sons. If we long for more than to be regarded as sons of God and heirs, we must ascend above Christ. But if this is our final goal, how infatuated is it to seek out of him what we have already obtained in him, and can only find in him?

Institutes 3.24.5. Christ is the "mirror" in which we may, without deception, "contemplate our election." Can we contemplate our election by looking to ourselves? No. Thus, for Calvin, assurance could never be gained by self-examination.

Were we to look to ourselves for certainty of our salvation, we could have no certainty at all. In fact, one would see only damnation. Here Calvin disputes with "certain semi-papists" who would say that the Christian can have no certainty of his election, compounding a "mixture of faith and unbelief."

They tell you, if you look to Christ salvation is certain; if you return to yourself damnation is certain. Therefore, your mind must be alternately ruled by diffidence and hope; as if we were to imagine Christ standing at a distance, and not rather dwelling in us. We expect salvation from him - not because he stands aloof from us, but because ingrafting us into his body he not only makes us partakers of all his benefits, but also of himself. Therefore, I thus retort the argument, If you look to yourself damnation is certain: but since Christ has been communicated to you with all his benefits, so that all which is his is made yours, you become a member of him, and hence one with him. His righteousness covers your sins - his salvation extinguishes your condemnation; he interposes with his worthiness, and so prevents your unworthiness from coming into the view of God. Thus it truly is. It will never do to separate Christ from us, nor us from him; but we must, with both hands, keep firm hold of that alliance by which he has riveted us to himself.

Institutes 3.2.24. And if one thinks about it, how could it be otherwise? When we are yet unjustified, can we come to Christ looking to our own works for some assurance of God's favor? Certainly not. And by the same token, how could we have assurance by looking at our works after salvation? Because our works are better?

But as the fruits of regeneration furnish them with a proof of the Holy Spirit dwelling in them, experiencing God to be a Father in a matter of so much moment, they are strengthened in no slight degree to wait for his assistance in all their necessities. Even this they could not do, had they not previously perceived that the goodness of God is sealed to them by nothing but the certainty of the promise. Should they begin to estimate it by their good works, nothing will be weaker or more uncertain; works, when estimated by themselves, no less proving the divine displeasure by their imperfection, than his good-will by their incipient purity. In short, while proclaiming the mercies of the Lord, they never lose sight of his free favor, with all its “breadth and length, and depth and height,” testified by Paul (Eph_3:18); as if he had said, Whithersoever the believer turns, however loftily he climbs, however far and wide his thoughts extend, he must not go farther than the love of Christ, but must be wholly occupied in meditating upon it, as including in itself all dimensions.

Institutes 3.14.19. We are, to be sure, strengthened by the "fruits of regeneration," but only because they furnish proof of "the Holy Spirit dwelling in them," and "experiencing God to be a Father," not contemplating the good works in themselves, or commending our consciences before God by virtue of our good works. The grounds of assurance, for Calvin, must always be found in the favor of God given to us by his free promise of salvation in Christ. Works may confirm our faith, but only because and insofar as they assure us of God's free favor. Were we to contemplate the works by themselves or in themselves, they would surely rob us of all assurance.

But what of the scriptures that speak of gaining assurance by self-examination? R. T. Kendall addresses this question.

The later distinction between faith and assurance seems never to have entered Calvin's mind. Assurance to Calvin comes by what would later be called the direct act of faith.

* * *

What Calvin does not do, then, is to urge men to make their calling and election sure to themselves. He thinks Christ's death is a sufficient pledge and merely seeing Him is assuring. Never does he employ 2 Peter 1:10 in connection with seeking assurance of salvation. He regards 2 Peter generally as an encouragement "to make proof" of one's calling "by godly living" and 2 Peter 1:10 particularly as an argument that our election is to be "confirmed" by a good conscience and an upright life". It should be noted moreover that Calvin does not link this verse to the conscience in terms of deducing assurance of salvation.

"This assurance of which Peter speaks should not, in my opinion, be referred to conscience, as though the faithful acknowledged themselves before God to be elect and called. I take it simply of the fact itself, that calling is shown to be confirmed by a holy life."

R. T. Kendall, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649, p. 25, citing Calvin, Comm. 2 Peter Preface and 2 Peter 1:10, footnotes omitted. It should be noted that the Baker edition of Calvin's Commentary on 2 Peter has for the above quote, "At the same time, this certainty, mentioned by Peter, ought, I think, to be referred to the conscience...," which is 180 degrees wrong. The Latin confirms the Torrence edition's translation.

Would we have assurance of salvation? For Calvin, Christ alone is "is the mirror in which we ought, and in which, without deception, we may contemplate our election."

Does assurance of salvation come from self-examination?

Many in the reformed camp would have us know of our election from the process of self-examination. For example, Roger Nicole said:

universal atonement is neither necessary nor sufficient for assurance. It is not necessary since my understanding of how the work of Christ affects others is not essential for a perception of how it affects me.

The difficulty is, of course, that any sensible person who contemplates his life with any degree of honesty will find his mind filled with doubt as to the possibility of his salvation. The problem is exacerbated by the thought, "I may be deceiving myself as to my faith in Christ." John MacArthur made much of this possibility of self-deception in a recent series of broadcast sermons. The possibility of self-deception is deeply embedded in our confessions:

Although hypocrites and other unregenerate men may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions of being in the favor of God, and estate of salvation (which hope of theirs shall perish): yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love him in sincerity, endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before him, may, in this life, be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, which hope shall never make them ashamed.

Westminster Confession of Faith XVIII. 1.

How can I know that I'm not deceiving myself? Am I truly one of the elect? I examine my works, and though I may find reasons for hope, these reasons for hope are ... what? ... my own good works. Surely my good works are no grounds for hope of eternal salvation! And are not my good works (even the best of them) tainted with sin?

Some get over this problem of uneven performance of good works by pointing to a general tenor or course of progress in one's sanctification. Well, yes, but is my progress good enough? Am I self-deceived about my progress in sanctification or the general tenor of my life?

Can I know that I am elect?

R. T. Kendall points out that this problem dominates the reformed doctrine of faith. We who call ourselves reformed have that question constantly nagging at the back of our mind. That these questions do arise in our hearts, every Christian knows. Kendall cites the example of Mrs. Joan Drake, the wife of Sir Francis Drake.

In addition to having a series of maladies including "migraine, perpetual heartburn, and insomnia", Mrs. Drake became "melancholy, distempered, and erratic" and confided that she was not happily married. Mr. Drake was solicitous for her well-being but was unable to ameliorate her emotional state. Mrs. Drake had become convinced that her maladies were owing to her having committed the unpardonable sin and that she was among the number of the reprobate, incapable of changing her appointed state.

Over the next few years (c. 1620-5) several eminent divines were called in to help Mrs. Drake. The first was John Dod, "the fittest man known" to help her. When Dod arrived "she suddenly flung upstaires" and "shut her selfe in". She came out only after Mr. Drake threatened "to beat down the door". But Dod's prayers and counsel — which lasted a month — did not avail. He returned several times in the ensuing months, but Mrs. Drake remained convinced "shee was a damned Reprobate, must needs goe unto Hell to live for ever", that it was "in vaine, and too late for her to use any meanes" She wished Mr. Dod "to let her alone", for "the Decree of her rejection and damnation" was "past irrevocable"....

R. T. Kendall, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649, 126-127, citing George H. Williams, "Called by Thy Name, Leave us Not: The Case of Mrs. Joan Drake," Harvard Library Bulletin (1968).

The case of Mrs. Drake is certainly an extreme one (or so we would tell ourselves) and she did eventually come to assurance of faith; but every Christian (especially Calvinists) who reads this will identify to at least a small degree with the doubts of Mrs. Drake. An honest examination of our good works will generally lead us to doubt our salvation. Some ministers are quite skilled at making Christians doubt their faith by calling on them to examine their works.

I'll conclude this tomorrow with the answer from Calvin.

God's favor toward sinners - Calvin on Psalm 51:7

I was reading today in Calvin's commentary on Psalm 51:7 and found some words that strongly reminded me of Calvin's commentary on John 3:16. There Calvin says that "our minds cannot find calm repose, until we arrive at the unmerited love of God." Here's the quote from Calvin's comment on the Psalm:

The truth is, that we cannot properly pray for the pardon of sin until we have come to a persuasion that God will be reconciled to us. Who can venture to open his mouth in God’s presence unless he be assured of his fatherly favor? And pardon being the first thing we should pray for, it is plain that there is no inconsistency in having a persuasion of the grace of God, and yet proceeding to supplicate his forgiveness.

John Calvin, Comment. Psalm 51:7.

This idea that faith sees God as propitious toward us — as pacified, as an indulgent father — is a strong one in Calvin's theology; it runs like a vein of silver through his teaching. You find it cropping up everywhere.

The liberals, perhaps, overemphasized the fatherly love of God to the exclusion of faith in Christ, but some modern evangelicals may have improperly downplayed the fatherly love of God in reaction to the liberals. Calvin is calling me back.

Is Universal Atonement Necessary for Assurance?

I continue my critique of Roger Nicole's answer to R. T. Kendall's important work on Calvin's doctrine of faith. You can look at previous blog entries in this series to gain some context:

• Calvin vs. Cunningham & Nicole
• Individuals or Classes? Calvin on 1Timothy 2:4-6
• The love of God for all men in Calvin's writings
• Calvin Extolling Universal Grace
• Nicole's critique of R. T. Kendall's view of history
• Nicole critiques Kendall's view of assurance

Kendall held that Calvin could not have taught limited atonement because of the strong connection that Calvin saw between the atonement as a testimony of God's love, and the corresponding assurance men can have of God's love. Indeed, for Calvin, this objective assurance of God's love is the essence of faith as well as the grounds of subjective assurance of forgiveness of sins.

Roger Nicole challenged Kendall's idea, asserting that there is no strong connection between universal atonement and assurance of salvation.

The close connection posited by Kendall between universal atonement and the assurance of faith must also be challenged, for universal atonement is neither necessary nor sufficient for assurance. It is not necessary since my understanding of how the work of Christ affects others is not essential for a perception of how it affects me. It is not sufficient since on Kendall’s showing, all covered by the atonement will not be saved; assurance, if it is to be reliable, needs to be grounded in something that actually makes a difference between the saved and the lost.

Nicole, John Calvin's View of the Extent of the Atonement, Westminster Theological Journal 47 (1985) 197 at 204-205.

We have already seen in previous blog entries that Calvin did believe, as Kendall pointed out, that the sending of Christ as the atonement for sins was the highest testimony of God's love for man. Thus whether Nicole's argument objecting to the connection between atonement and assurance is valid, Calvin evidently believed the connection and Kendall was right to point it out.

But I wish now to move to a consideration of the logic of Nicole's argument.

Is universal atonement necessary for assurance?

First we need to make sure we understand what assurance refers to. For Calvin, assurance is assurance of God's love, not assurance of one's own salvation.

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

Consider that statement again. Faith is firm and sure knowledge of the divine favor toward us. For Calvin, this assurance of divine favor is of the essence of faith. And this assurance of divine favor comes from the testimony of God himself.

It were presumptuous in us to hold that God is propitious to us, had we not his own testimony, and did he not prevent us by his invitation, which leaves no doubt or uncertainty as to his will. It has already been seen that Christ is the only pledge of love....

ibid. Thus God has given us his assurance of his love for us, the testimony being Christ himself, and this testimony is the foundation for our faith.

Nicole's argument on assurance

Nicole says that universal atonement is not necessary to assurance:

It is not necessary since my understanding of how the work of Christ affects others is not essential for a perception of how it affects me.

Thus, Nicole would have us look to how the work of Christ has affected me before I can have assurance. Notice that this is a different logical order from Calvin. Calvin has assurance of God's love logically prior (in order of causation) to faith, and Nicole has faith (i.e., Christ's work has affected me ... presumably in regeneration and sanctification) prior to assurance. This ought to give us a clue that Nicole is speaking of a different assurance than Calvin. Calvin is speaking of the certainty of God's interest in me, whereas Nicole is speaking of the certainty of my interest in God. We could object to Nicole's argument at this point as being irrelevant to Calvin's and Kendall's thesis. He's simply not on the same page.

But let's assume that the difference in senses of assurance that Calvin and Nicole is merely semantic. There is a more important objection here, and that is that Nicole would drive us inward to seek assurance. Assurance is possible by knowing how Christ's work has affected me. Some theologians speak of the practical syllogism, which might look something like this:

Major Premise: Only true believers manifest the fruits of sanctification.
Minor Premise:I see the fruits of sanctification in my life.
Conclusion: Therefore, I may be assured that I have a saving faith.

Do you see how in this way of looking at things, assurance comes from looking at oneself? In Calvin's way, assurance comes not from looking at oneself, but from looking at Christ. The difference here is referred to as the difference between assurance based on a direct act of faith or assurance based on a reflex act of faith. The direct act of faith looks directly to Christ, the reflex act of faith looks to the fruits of salvation in oneself.

Calvin taught that we cannot look to ourselves for assurance.

For there is no where such a fear of God as can give full security, and the saints are always conscious that any integrity which they may possess is mingled with many remains of the flesh. But as the fruits of regeneration furnish them with a proof of the Holy Spirit dwelling in them, experiencing God to be a Father in a matter of so much moment, they are strengthened in no slight degree to wait for his assistance in all their necessities. Even this they could not do, had they not previously perceived that the goodness of God is sealed to them by nothing but the certainty of the promise. Should they begin to estimate it by their good works, nothing will be weaker or more uncertain; works, when estimated by themselves, no less proving the divine displeasure by their imperfection, than his good-will by their incipient purity. In short, while proclaiming the mercies of the Lord, they never lose sight of his free favor, with all its “breadth and length, and depth and height"....

Institutes 3.14.19. If we had no objective assurance of God's universal love for men, we would have no other place to look than to our own sanctification. Nicole would have us look there for assurance, while Calvin says "nothing will be weaker or more uncertain."

The problem, of course, is that if Christ did not die for some men — if for some men Christ's death promises nothing — then how am I to know of the divine favor? Since Christ's death is the highest testimony of God's love, then if that testimony is diminished by the possibility that it is not for me, then I am deprived of the highest objective assurance of that love. I am indeed left to examine my own works for assurance.

Calvin would not have us look to ourselves, but to Christ. As Calvin admits in 3.2.24, "If you look to yourself damnation is certain...."

How might we feel the certainty of our salvation? Not in ourselves, but only in Christ:

But if we are elected in him, we cannot find the certainty of our election in ourselves; and not even in God the Father, if we look at him apart from the Son. Christ, then, is the mirror in which we ought, and in which, without deception, we may contemplate our election.

Institutes 3.24.5

Calvin v Heshusius on the web!

I want to thank the moderator of Calvin and Calvinism for posting my article on Calvin, Heshusius, and Limited Atonement on his website.

The Heshusius quote has been misunderstood and grossly exaggerated in importance by the urgent necessity of finding some quote from Calvin that shores up limited atonement. I hope that the article will open up an avenue of thought and help to put to rest the idea that Calvin's work ought to be (re)interpreted in the light of Calvin's ironic rhetorical question to Heshusius.

For those who are looking for an analysis of the Heshusius quote, I hope I have provided a straight-forward, simple approach to understanding Calvin's message.

Another reason for reading the essay is to get a fresh view of Calvin's view of the Lord's Supper. Calvin's view is not common in evangelical circles today. One wonders why. (I suspect it may have a lot to do with the subsequent ascendency of strict limited atonement in reformed theology.) As always, Calvin's genius comes through in his analysis of the Supper. I have always found Calvin to be thorough, sound, and faithful to the scriptures in his explanation of them. Be careful though, Calvin will change you. You have been warned!

Calvin on God's Testimony of His Love for All

A friend of mine told me last night that he had added a link to my blog from his. I was gratified, but it made me think I ought to write something once in a while to justify the link.

Is it possible for me to know that God loves me? Calvin wrote this in the Institutes:

It were presumptuous in us to hold that God is propitious to us, had we not his own testimony, and did he not prevent us by his invitation, which leaves no doubt or uncertainty as to his will. It has already been seen that Christ is the only pledge of love, for without him all things, both above and below speak of hatred and wrath.

Institutes 3.2.7. This section of the Institutes speaks of a definition of faith. And for Calvin, faith must be founded on the testimony and invitation of God, as we see in the quote above. But notice what that testimony and invitation consists of: "Christ is the only pledge of love," according to Calvin. Thus Christ crucified is the testimony and invitation of God to every sinner.

Another friend of mine (who, I fear, will never link to this blog) asked me whether the gospel must contain the words, "God loves you and Christ died for you." I answered yes, primarily on the strength of this idea I learned from Calvin. We are to proclaim the gospel to all men (Acts 17:30, Romans 9:3, 10:1). The gospel is an invitation of reconciliation from God to man (2 Corinthians 5:19, 20). And the sacrifice of Christ is the testimony of God's love for us. Thus the sacrifice of Christ must be preached to all as a testimony of God's love and mercy and of his readiness to pardon. In that sense (as well as others), Christ's work is for all.

Calvin's commentary on John 3:16 is very much in this vein:

For God so loved the world. Christ opens up the first cause, and, as it were, the source of our salvation, and he does so, that no doubt may remain; for our minds cannot find calm repose, until we arrive at the unmerited love of God. As the whole matter of our salvation must not be sought any where else than in Christ, so we must see whence Christ came to us, and why he was offered to be our Savior. Both points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom34.ix.iii.html

Nicole critiques Kendall's view of assurance

I am continuing my review of Roger Nicole's article on Calvin's doctrine of the atonement. Part of Nicole's article is devoted to a critique of R. T. Kendall's book, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649. This book is a very interesting read for the student of history and an important one for the student of theology.

After Nicole's general criticism of Kendall, covered in my previous blog entry, Nicole briefly analyzed Kendall's assertion that Calvin saw a strong connection between faith and assurance. Kendall, quoting Calvin, said this:

For since he necessarily hates sin, how shall we be convinced that He loves us until those sins for which He is justly angry with us have been expiated? Thus before we can have any feeling of His fatherly kindness, the blood of Christ must intercede to reconcil God to us. [Footnote, Calvin, Comm. John 3:16]

This statement reveals why Calvin feels so strongly about a universal expiation by Christ's death; Christ's deat 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'. [Footnote, Comm. John 3:16. Cf. Comm. John 15:9....] For 'we are to learn to fix our eyes on the death of Christ, whenever our salvation is concerned'. [Footnote, Calvin, Comm. Rom. 5:11.]

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.

For Kendall, this strong connection in Calvin's theology between faith and assurance made it impossible for Calvin to have taught limited atonement. Nicole criticizes that argument:

The close connection posited by Kendall between universal atonement and the assurance of faith must also be challenged, for universal atonement is neither necessary nor sufficient for assurance. It is not necessary since my understanding of how the work of Christ affects others is not essential for a perception of how it affects me. It is not sufficient since on Kendall’s showing, all covered by the atonement will not be saved; assurance, if it is to be reliable, needs to be grounded in something that actually makes a difference between the saved and the lost.

Nicole, John Calvin's View of the Extent of the Atonement, Westminster Theological Journal 47 (1985) 197 at 204-205.

Universal atonement such as Kendal posits, Nicole alleges, is neither necessary nor sufficient for assurance. Let's examine this argument. First, universal atonement is not necessary for assurance. It is not necessary for I can know the effect it has on me though I may not know the effect it has on anyone else.

Second, universal atonement is not sufficient for assurance. It is not sufficient, he says, because some who are covered by the atonement will not be saved. So a person could feel insecure because the atonement doesn't necessarily save anyone. I can only trust in that which makes a difference and only some other factor, something other than the atonement, makes a difference, therefore I must look to that other thing — my own faith perhaps? — for assurance.

I have several objections to Nicole's argument here. First, the strong connection between the atonement and assurance is not original with Kendall, it comes directly from Calvin. Anyone familiar with Calvin's commentary to John 3:16 will admit this.

For God so loved the world. Christ opens up the first cause, and, as it were, the source of our salvation, and he does so, that no doubt may remain; for our minds cannot find calm repose, until we arrive at the unmerited love of God.

* * *

He gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him may not perish. This, he says, is the proper look of faith, to be fixed on Christ, in whom it beholds the breast of God filled with love: this is a firm and enduring support, to rely on the death of Christ as the only pledge of that love. The word only-begotten is emphatic,... to magnify the fervor of the love of God towards us. For as men are not easily convinced that God loves them, in order to remove all doubt, he has expressly stated that we are so very dear to God that, on our account, he did not even spare his only-begotten Son. Since, therefore, God has most abundantly testified his love towards us, whoever is not satisfied with this testimony, and still remains in doubt, offers a high insult to Christ, as if he had been an ordinary man given up at random to death. But we ought rather to consider that, in proportion to the estimation in which God holds his only-begotten Son, so much the more precious did our salvation appear to him, for the ransom of which he chose that his only-begotten Son should die.

Calvin, Comment to John 3:16. Our minds cannot find repose, says Calvin, unless we discover proof of the unmerited love of God. Jesus assures us emphatically of the fervor of God's love. And here is a firm and enduring support on which the mind of sinful man can rest. God has testified his love for me by sending his only-begotten Son on my behalf.

It seems to me that Kendall was quite correct to point out Calvin's views on assurance. In the Institutes, Calvin makes the knowledge of God's favor an essential element in saving faith. (See Institutes 3.2.7.) Count Zinzendorf captured this spirit very well in his famous hymn, Jesus Thy Blood and Righteousness

Lord, I believe Thy precious blood,
Which, at the mercy seat of God,
Forever doth for sinners plead,
For me, e’en for my soul, was shed.

Lord, I believe were sinners more
Than sands upon the ocean shore,
Thou hast for all a ransom paid,
For all a full atonement made.

When from the dust of death I rise
To claim my mansion in the skies,
Ev’n then this shall be all my plea,
Jesus hath lived, hath died, for me.

More objections to Nicole's argument on this point next time.

Nicole's critique of R. T. Kendall's view of history

I am going to devote a few articles to Roger Nicole's criticism of R. T. Kendall, which appears in Nicole's well-known article on Calvin and limited atonement. (John Calvin's View of the Extent of the Atonement. (Westminster Theological Journal 47 (1985): 197-225).)

Roger Nicole spends a few paragraphs critiquing R. T. Kendall's 1979 book, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649 (Oxford University Press, 1979, 2d ed. Paternoster, 1997).

Kendall's radical thesis

Let me preface this discussion by saying that I was personally devastated by Kendall's analysis. Not only is Kendall's book eye-opening, his analysis amounts to a stunning critique of the reformed doctrine of faith. Kendall shows that the trajectory of reformed theology has been significantly altered by the theologians that followed Calvin, particularly the theological heritage of Perkins and Ames. Though Kendall spends a sparse few pages on the doctrine of limited atonement, he shows convincingly that Calvin could not have held to limited atonement by virtue of the very nature of Calvin's doctrine of faith. Comparing modern reformed theology to Calvin, today's reformed theology has a completely different doctrine of faith. Though Kendall hits at limited atonement only indirectly, his blow is shattering.

If you think, dear reader, that I am exaggerating, I assure you that I am not. Kendall's thesis is radical: it lays the axe to the root of the tree.

Nicole's criticism of Kendall

Nicole's criticism of Kendall can be summarized in these two points:

1. Either Kendall is right or the reformed theologians of four centuries of history, from Beza to B. B. Warfield, are right.
2. Kendall has badly misread Calvin. Kendall selects his quotations, his evidence is ambiguous, and Kendall quotes Calvin out of context. The imagined connection in Calvin's theology between assurance and universal redemption is a figment of the imagination.

I will cover the first point in this article, then take up the second point in an article or two to follow. First, here is Nicole's broad criticism of Kendall:

1979 saw the appearance of R. T. Kendall’s Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649. In this volume the author attempts to document that there is a great chasm between Calvin’s theology and that of his successor Beza, followed in turn by William Perkins and others and culminating in the Westminster Assembly, which unconsciously was veering in the direction of Arminianism rather than proceeding in the path delineated by Calvin. This extremely paradoxical thesis appears to rest primarily upon the observation that Calvin grounded the assurance of faith in the conviction “that Christ died indiscriminately for all men” and included this assurance in the very “essence of faith.” The same position is espoused in Kendall’s essay on “The Puritan Modification of Calvin’s Theology” in John Calvin: His Influence in the Western World, a work otherwise in line with traditional Calvinism. Kendall’s position was very vigorously disputed in devastating reviews by A. N. S. Lane, W. Stanford Reid, and especially Paul Helm.

On the face of it Kendall’s view appears well-nigh incredible, for it implies that practically all the Calvinist successors of Calvin from Beza to Warfield and beyond, passing through the Synod of Dort delegates and the members of the Westininster Assembly, were basically wrong concerning the major direction of their theology. To call the Westminster Assembly doctrine of faith “crypto-Arminian” is preposterous. Kendall’s position impugns also practically all the Arminian theologians for failing to recognize that Calvin was their ally in the matter of the extent of the atonement, and the Calvinists with respect to the nature of faith! Frankly, it is easier to believe that Kendall is wrong rather than this whole galaxy of theologians!

Nicole, 203-204, citations omitted.

Calvin couldn't have taught unlimited atonement — could he?

The argument that nearly every reader of reformed literature makes to himself at one time or another when confronting the Calvin problem is this one: Calvin couldn't have taught unlimited atonement. He just couldn't have! Why, if he did, then the whole reformed community has been wrong about him! Surely Calvin believed TULIP!

That stubborn refusal to deal with Calvin's theology on its own terms because of the weight of contrary expert authority is one of the stock arguments against the idea that Calvin taught unlimited atonement. But it is a fallacy. Though all those men — from Beza to Warfield — may have misread Calvin, whether they did or didn't is irrelevant to the question of Calvin's meaning when he wrote, for example, the following:

Luke goes still farther in showing that the salvation brought by Christ is common to the whole human race, in as much as Christ; the author of salvation is descended from Adam, the common father of us all.

Institutes, 2.3.3. Kendall can read Calvin too, and he has made an analysis for our benefit. Kendall has criticized the theologians who followed Calvin. But that criticism cannot be wrong merely because it is a criticism. Nicole, in answering Kendall, has simply counted noses and concluded that because more theologians believe Calvin taught limited atonement, he must have done so. What authority can that have against an actual reading and analysis of Calvin and his reformed successors?

I submit that it has no authority.

One problem that is often encountered in scholarly literature is the genetic fallacy writ large. Expert A analyzes something and comes to some conclusion: let's call it conclusion Z. Expert B believes A and simply repeats his analysis uncritically. Expert C follows B and before you know it, a universe of experts —or even a galaxy of theologians — has supported conclusion Z.

But what if expert A was wrong? That is what Kendall has said. Now I am not saying that the galaxy of theologians has simply followed Beza, Perkins, or Ames or anybody in particular — the problem has not come up in that simple obvious manner. But if Kendall is right, it has arisen in something like that manner. That this is the case is shown by Nicole's argument itself. Nicole's criticism of Kendall is essentially just expert following expert. Kendall can't be right, says Nicole, because of the galaxy of theologians.

Kendall cannot be dismissed in this frivolous manner, merely because he has disagreed with the understanding of a significant historical movement. Fifty million Frenchmen can be wrong, and it is certainly not ipso facto wrong to criticize them. Further, Kendall's criticism is a strong one and ought to be taken up in a serious manner, not simply tossed aside.

Was the Westminster Assembly "crypto-Arminian?"

Yes, Kendall did say that the Westminster Assembly's doctrine of faith was crypto-Arminian. One must keep this criticism in perspective, though. Kendall was saying that the Assembly's doctrine of faith is crypto-Arminian, not their doctrine of depravity, free will, sovereignty of God, election, or predestination.

Further, Kendall has provided specific criticisms with reference to the thoughts of specific theologians. He has made thorough comparisons of those thoughts with Calvin's own. Nicole's dismissal of Kendall's argument as "preposterous" is a disservice to the intelligent reader.

As a brief summary of Kendall's thought on this point, I make the following observations.

First, Kendall criticizes the Assembly's doctrine of faith as voluntaristic. That is, reformed theology sees faith as an act of the will, where Calvin sees faith as knowledge. Calvin's viewpoint is obvious from Calvin's definition of faith in the Institutes:

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.

Not only is faith knowledge, but it is "firm and sure knowledge." Calvin did see assurance as essential to Christian faith.

And finally, this knowledge is received passively. Whereas an act of the will is, by its very nature, active, Calvin sees faith as passively received. Kendall quotes Calvin to this effect: faith is "something merely passive, bringing nothing of ours to the recovering of God's favor but receiving from Christ that which we lack." Kendall, 19, quoting Institutes 3.13.5. (Compare Calvin's comment on John 6:29.)

Second, Kendall criticizes the Assembly's doctrine as implying that faith follows repentance. The reformed theologians after Beza emphasized, to a greater or lesser extent, the idea of repentance as preparation for faith. Calvin rejected this; he saw faith as producing repentance:

Now it ought to be a fact beyond controversy that repentance not only constantly follows faith, but is also born of faith.... There are some, however, who suppose that repentance precedes faith, rather than flows from it, or is produced by it as fruit from a tree. Such persons have never known the power of repentance, and are moved to feel this way by an unduly slight argument.

Insititutes 3.3.1. Compare also this quote about preparation:

We are all sinners by nature, therefore we are held under the yoke of sin. But if the whole man is subject to the dominion of sin, surely the will, which is its principal seat, must be bound with the closest chains. And, indeed, if divine grace were preceded by any will of ours, Paul could not have said that “it is God which worketh in us both to will and to do” (Phi 2:13). Away, then, with all the absurd trifling which many have indulged in with regard to preparation.

Institutes 2.2.27. Repentance, which is an act of the will, is "bound with the closest chains," and requires God's work to produce it. Thus for Calvin, repentance cannot be a preparation for faith.

It is in these respects that Kendall criticizes the Westminster Assembly's doctrine of faith as crypto-Arminian. Nicole does not answer or even address Kendall's criticisms on these points — apart from his casual comments that the criticisms are "paradoxical," "well-nigh incredible," and "preposterous."

More on this subject next time.

W. G. T. Shedd on 1John 2:2 - Conclusion

In the Editor’s Preface to the third edition of W. G. T. Shedd’s Dogmatic Theology, Alan W. Gomes writes that "modern evangelical systems tend to be weaker precisely at those points where Shedd’s is most robust." In this blogger’s opinion, the statement is true with respect not only to modern evangelicalism, but with respect to modern evangelical Calvinism as well. Today’s Calvinism has a view of God that is myopic, emphasizing the sovereignty of God to the exclusion of His love of all mankind. Shedd’s view of the mercy of God would tend to counteract that defect. Here is a marvelous passage, in which Shedd extols the mercy of God as shown in the free offer of the gospel:

The Christian gospel--the universal offer of pardon through the self-sacrifice of one of the divine persons--should silence every objection to the doctrine of endless punishment. For as the case now stands, there is no necessity, so far as the action of God is concerned, that a single human being should ever be the subject of future punishment * * *

For the Scriptures everywhere describe God as naturally and spontaneously merciful and declare that all the legal obstacles to the exercise of this great attribute have been removed by the death of the Son of God 'for the sins of the whole world' (1 John 2:2). In the very center of the holy revelations of Sinai, Jehovah proclaimed it to be his inherent and intrinsic disposition to be 'merciful and gracious, long-suffering, forgiving iniquity and transgression' (Exod. 34:6-7). Nehemiah, after the exile, repeats the doctrine of the Pentateuch: 'You are a God ready to pardon, gracious and merciful, and of great kindness' (Neh. 9:17). The psalmist declares that 'the Lord is ready to forgive and plenteous in mercy unto all that call upon him' (Ps. 86:5); 'the Lord takes pleasure in them that fear him, in those that hope in his mercy' (147:11). From the twilight of the land of Uz, Elihu, feeling after the promised Redeemer if haply he might find him (Job 33:23), declares that 'God looks upon men, and if any say, I have sinned and perverted that which was right, and it profited me not; he will deliver his soul from going down to the pit, and his life shall see the light' (33:27-28). The Bible throughout teaches that the Supreme Being is sensitive to penitence and is moved with compassion and paternal yearning whenever he perceives any sincere spiritual grief. He notices and welcomes the slightest indication of repentance: 'The eye of the Lord is upon them that fear him, upon them that hope in his mercy' (Ps. 33:18); 'whoso confesses and forsakes his sins shall have mercy' (Prov. 28:13). The heavenly Father sees the prodigal when he is 'yet a great way off.' He never 'breaks the bruised reed' nor 'quenches the smoking flax.' If there be in any human creature the broken and contrite heart, divine pity speaks the word of forgiveness and absolution. The humble confession of unworthiness operates almost magically upon the eternal. Incarnate mercy said to the heathen 'woman of Canaan' who asked for only the dogs' crumbs, 'O woman, great is your faith; be it unto you even as you will' (Matt. 15:28). The omnipotent is overcome whenever he sees lowly penitential sorrow. As 'the foolishness of God is wiser than man,' so the self-despairing helplessness of man is stronger than God. When Jacob says to the infinite one, 'I am not worthy of the least of all your mercies,' yet wrestled with him 'until the breaking of the day,' he becomes Israel and 'as a prince has power with God' (Gen. 32:10, 24, 28). When Jehovah hears Ephraim 'bemoaning himself,' and saying, 'Turn me, and I shall be turned,' he answers, 'Ephraim is my dear son. I will surely have mercy upon him' (Jer. 31:18, 20).

Now the only obstruction, and it is a fatal one, to the exercise of this natural and spontaneous mercy of God is the sinner's hardness of heart.

W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 3d. edition, pages 930-931. In Shedd’s theology of 1John 2:2, we see a well-rounded view of God’s love for the whole world as expressed in Christ’s expiatory work.

More W. G. T. Shedd on 1John 2:2

In Shedd’s view of Christ’s expiation for the sins of mankind, the work of Christ is not merely theoretical. Christ has done all that is necessary for the sins of man to be forgiven. In relation to God’s justice, Christ’s atonement cancels the claims of the law against the human race:

In the third place, atonement, either personal or vicarious, naturally and necessarily cancels legal claims. This means that there is such a natural and necessary correlation between vicarious atonement and justice that the former supplies all that is required by the latter. It does not mean that Christ’s vicarious atonement naturally and necessarily saves every man; because the relation of Christ’s atonement to divine justice is one thing, but the relation of a particular person to Christ’s atonement is a very different thing. Christ’s death as related to the claims of the law upon all mankind cancels those claims wholly. It is an infinite "propitiation for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2). But the relation of an impenitent person to this atonement is that of unbelief and rejection of it. Consequently, what the atonement has effected objectively in reference to the attribute of divine justice is not effected subjectively in the conscience of the individual. There is an infinite satisfaction that naturally and necessarily cancels legal claims, but unbelief derives no benefit from the fact.

W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 3d. edition, page 724. This being the case, the gospel can be freely offered to all:

The atonement is sufficient in value to expiate the sin of all men indiscriminately; and this fact should be stated because it is a fact. There are no claims of justice not yet satisfied; there is no sin of man for which an infinite atonement has not been provided. All things are now ready. Therefore the call to come is universal. It is plain, that the offer of the atonement should be regulated by its intrinsic nature and sufficiency, not by the obstacles that prevent its efficacy. The extent to which a medicine is offered is not limited by the number of persons favorably disposed to buy it and use it. Its adaptation to disease is the sole consideration in selling it, and consequently it is offered to everybody.

Shedd, page 750. The man who refuses the benefit of what Christ has done effectively limits the atonement by his unbelief. Christ has done all that is necessary for the salvation of every man as far as God’s justice is concerned. For those who refuse the gracious offer of Christ’s expiation, justice will be satisfied another way.

Calvin, Heshusius, and limited atonement

Well, I have finally completed the Heshusius article. I put the article in pdf format so you can download it to your computer and have it look nice.

[UPDATE June, 2009. I consider myself web-savvy and all ... but I have had a great deal of difficulty figuring out exactly how to publish this paper in a nice form without spending money. :-) The link above goes to an html document published on Google docs. I have the Heshusius paper in pdf form also, which I'll send you by email if you request it. Just send me your email address asking for the Heshusius pdf and I'll get it right out to you.]

The article is a compilation of the thoughts on the Heshusius matter that I have posted on this blog, edited and (hopefully) improved.

I invite your comments, suggestions, and editorial remarks. I hope you find it interesting and profitable. Working on this project had a major impact on my theology of the Lord's Supper. Calvin always does that to me.

Technorati Tags: John Calvin, Heshusius, limited atonement, unlimited atonement

W. G. T. Shedd on 1John 2:2

In this series of articles on the theology of 1John 2:2, I am attempting to show that there is a substantial minority report among Calvinistic and reformed theologians on the meaning of "the whole world" in that passage. In my previous blog entry on this topic, I gave W. G. T. Shedd’s view of limited atonement: "Atonement is unlimited, and redemption is limited." Because Shedd had that view, he was at liberty to see universal aspects of Christ’s atonement in those passages of scripture that speak of the atonement as universal.

In describing the effect produced on the conscience of believers by the reconciliation of God and man, Shedd does not hesitate to say that Christ died for the whole world:

The human conscience is the mirror and index of the divine attribute of justice. The two are correlated. What therefore God's justice demands, man's conscience demands. "Nothing," says Matthew Henry, "can pacify an offended conscience but that which satisfied an offended God." The peace which the believer in Christ’s atonement enjoys, and which is promised by the Redeemer to the believer, is the subjective experience in man that corresponds to the objective reconciliation in God. The pacification of the human conscience is the consequence of the satisfaction of divine justice. God’s justice is completely satisfied for the sin of man by the death of Christ. This is an accomplished fact: "Jesus Christ the righteous is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world." (1 John 2:2). The instant any individual man of this world of mankind believes that divine justice is thus satisfied, his conscience is at rest. The belief is not needed in order to establish the fact. Whether a sinner believes Christ died for sin or not will make no difference with the fact, though it will make a vast difference with him: "If we believe not, yet he abides faithful: he cannot deny himself" (2 Tim. 2:13). Unbelief cannot destroy a fact. Should not a soul henceforth believe on the Son of God, it would nevertheless be a fact that he died an atoning death on Calvary and that this death is an ample oblation for the sin of the world. But it must be remembered that the kind of belief by which a man obtains a personal benefit from the fact of Christ’s death is experimental, not historical or hearsay. * * * And a sinful man may have no skeptical doubt that the death of Christ on Mount Calvary has completely expiated human guilt and may even construct a strong argument in proof of the fact and still have all the miserable experience of an unforgiven sinner, may still have remorse and the fear of death and the damnation of hell.

W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 3d. edition, pages 708-9, emphasis added.

One need not be puzzled by Shedd’s statements; he simply saw two aspects to the work of Christ: the universal expiation and the particular application. Part III from Shedd will follow in a few days.

Technorati Tags: W. G. T. Shedd, John Calvin, 1John 2:2

W. G. T. Shedd on Unlimited Atonement and Limited Redemption

I plan to post four essays on W. G. T. Shedd's understanding of 1John 2:2. I originally wrote these essays for another blog, but I have wanted to post this material on Shedd here for some time. Since I am currently busy reading RT Kendall (I'm nearly done), I thought I would take this opportunity to brush up this material and post it here.

I hope to show that the "reformed" understanding of 1John 2:2 is not monolithic. There is a minority report, which offers a sensible alternative to the interpretation offered by many modern reformed theologians.

W. G. T. Shedd

W. G. T. Shedd, a Presbyterian Pastor and theologian of the 19th century, wrote a 3-volume work entitled Dogmatic Theology. In this work, Shedd affirms a species of limited atonement, though he quarrels with the ambiguous use of certain terms associated with the dispute, and thus affirms, to be precise, limited redemption. I quote from the third edition (a much improved one-volume edition of Shedd's work, issued by P&R Publishing in 2003).

Since redemption implies the application of Christ’s atonement, universal or unlimited redemption cannot logically be affirmed by any who hold that faith is wholly the gift of God and that saving grace is bestowed solely by election. The use of the term redemption, consequently, is attended with less ambiguity than that of "atonement," and it is the term most commonly employed in controversial theology. Atonement is unlimited, and redemption is limited. This statement includes all the scriptural texts: those which assert that Christ died for all men, and those which assert that he died for his people. He who asserts unlimited atonement and limited redemption cannot well be misconceived. He is understood to hold that the sacrifice of Christ is unlimited in value, sufficiency, and publication, but limited in its effectual application.

Page 743 (emphasis added). Thus, for Shedd, there are both universal and particular aspects of Christ's work, and that helps us to understand the texts that speak universally. (My readers might find it interesting to compare R. L. Dabney's distinction between "atonement" and "reconciliation").

As Calvinists we ought not to overstate our case or take alarm at the idea that Christ died for all. More to come from Shedd soon.

Technorati Tags: unlimited atonement, limted redemption, W. G. T. Shedd

A word about the blog

My apologies to the thousands of you :-) who read my blog regularly. I have been working on a response to Roger Nicole's handling of R. T. Kendall, and found that it required more background preparation on my part than I had anticipated. I have decided to read Kendall's book in full, and I'm working on that now.

Let me just say that the Kendall thesis looks pretty good to me, and I will have an interesting article or two for you in the (hopefully) not-too-distant future. I should also say that Kendall's thesis is far more radical than it has been given credit for.

Be sure to check out today's entry on a comparison of John Flavel's universalistic and particularistic statements.

Comparison of the Universalistic and Particularistic John Flavel

Some Christian doctrine is difficult. It challenges our self-image by bringing us face to face with the limits of the finite. To put it plainly, we don't know everything, and God sometimes tells us things that would require more knowledge than we possess to properly understand.

(That doesn't mean, of course, that we ought to reject the truth or succumb to skepticism.)

Calvin's universalism and particularism

Calvin's doctrine of the atonement is one of those doctrines that we find it difficult to believe. There is no dispute that Calvin believed in predestination. There ought to be no dispute, on the other hand, that he also taught that Christ died for all men. Many who read Calvin, including eminent scholars, find Calvin's doctrine of predestination irreconcilable with the idea of universal atonement. And so they reject Calvin's plainly universalistic statements. He must have taught limited atonement, or else he could not have held to predestination. (See Paul Helm, for example.)

John Flavel's universalism and particularism

But not all theologians who followed in the Calvinistic tradition had such skeptical reactions. John Flavel is a good example.

My friend Tony Byrne has posted several quotations from John Flavel on his blog lately. Consider this strongly universalistic statement from Flavel that Tony posted on his blog on September 3rd:

[T]he first motions of mercy and salvation to you freely arise out of his grace and good pleasure. God entreats you to be reconciled. 2 Cor. 5 : 20. The blessed Lord Jesus, whose blood thy sins have shed, now freely offers that blood for thy reconciliation, justification, and salvation, if thou wilt but sincerely accept him ere it be too late.

Here is Flavel speaking of Christ's blood having been shed for the sins of all sinners. Very much in the vein of Calvin's thought.

On the other hand, here is Flavel with a strongly particularistic statement. Flavel speaks here of Isaiah 53:12:

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 which is it?

Did Christ die for all — or did he die for the elect?

The answer, of course, is, "both." Christ died for all men in some senses (which include redemptive and gracious purposes) though these senses do not necessarily reach to actual application of the eternal salvation purchased by Christ. From Flavel's universalistic and particularistic statements, I conclude that he held to some sort of dual aspect to the atonement, probably along lines similar to Calvin.

How does one reconcile universalism with particularism? Well, there are ways —there is always a way— though these ways may seem artificial or speculative. But we must accept the plain statements of scripture, though we may find them difficult —or impossible— to reconcile. To paraphrase R. L. Dabney, it would be exceeding presumption to suppose that because we do not see a reconciliation to the problem, none can be known to God.

More about Calvin on 1Timothy 2:4

One of my commenters, — anonymous" by name — referring to a criticism I made of Roger Nicole, posted this comment:

Anonymous said...

Remember that Nicole used the alleged emphatic repudiation to bolster the idea that Calvin taught particularism in the atonement. But in this quote we see Calvin distinctly teaching that God's grace extends to those who ultimately reject it.

How do you explain what Calvin said concerning 1 Tim 2:4:

"Since no one but he who is drawn by the secret influence of the Spirit can approach unto God, how is it that God does not draw all men indiscriminately to himself, if he really 'wills all men to be saved'?"

This quote is taken from Part II of Calvin's Calvinism, entitled "A Defence of the Secret Providence of God" by John Calvin, translated by Henry Cole, page 277.

First, we should have the whole quotation:

Since no one but he who is drawn by the secret influence of the Spirit can approach unto God, how is it that God does not draw all men indiscriminately to himself, if he really "willeth all men to be saved" (in the common meaning of the expression)?

Look at the emphasized part of that sentence. Calvin is speaking here of a particular conception of God's will, i.e., the conception of his opponent (who misrepresented Calvin's view as akin to fatalism and appears to have held some form of absolute universalism).

The kind of will that Calvin opposed here was an utterly equal will, such as might result in all men hearing the gospel and all men being the objects of the effectual work of the Spirit. He certainly does oppose that view of God's willing all men to be saved. But Calvin does not, in opposing this view of God's will, thereby oppose any and every view of God's willing all men to be saved. Consider this quote from the same context:

But how, and in what sense it is, that God willeth all men to be saved is a matter not here to be inquisitively discussed.

Secret Providence, page 277. This suggests that there is some sense, in Calvin's mind, in which God does indeed will that all men should be saved. For example, he does say elsewhere (in his commentary on 1Timothy 2:4) that God wishes that all men should hear the gospel. And in an earlier place in Secret Providence he says, "in as far as God 'willeth that all should come unto repentance,' in so far He willeth that no one should perish...." (page 276). And "Nay, if God Himself, who exhorts all men to repentance by His voice.... (page 277). This concept appears in many other places throughout Calvin's body of work.

This concept is tempered, to be sure, by Calvin's strong predestinarianism; but it is equally true that Calvin's predestinarianism is tempered by his view of God's will that all men be saved. Calvin often represents God to us as an indulgent and loving Father, who pleads for the salvation of all men.

The point here is that we have to understand Calvin's view of "God wills", in this passage. It is never wise to blindly latch on to a quote in the hopes that it will comfort us when we run into a difficulty in reading Calvin.

My son's recital at BJU music camp

Well, here it is, as promised. I'm very proud of Aaron, as you can imagine. The performance is not his best (he makes a couple of unfortunate mistakes right at the end of the piece), but it is certainly his bravest (he was performing in front of an audience of very talented teenage musicians). Even with the mistakes, it is still glorious music. The piece is Alexander Scriabin's Etude in D-sharp minor, Op. 8, No. 12, "Patetico." Enjoy!