The History of the Free Offer Chapter 2 The Reformers
|
Martin
Luther
It ought not to come as a
surprise that the whole issue of the free offer of the gospel was not an issue in the
controversies between the Reformers and the Romish church. The question of the preaching
of the gospel, and the controversy between the Reformation and Rome over preaching was not
so much what constitutes the character and content of the preaching; it was rather: is
preaching an integral part of the life of the church? Throughout the Middle Ages, with the
growth of Romish sacerdotalism and with increasingly strong emphasis on the mass, very
little preaching was to be found in Romish worship services. And if it were present, it
was often little more than the recitation or reading of homilies from preachers of an
earlier age. Expository preaching of the Scriptures simply did not exist in the Romish
church prior to the Reformation.
The Reformers, without exception, restored preaching to its rightful place in the worship
services. This "radical" transformation of the worship services by the Reformers
was a necessary consequence of their view of Scripture and of the office of all believers
as it functioned within the church. Thus it was that the questions of the character and
content of the preaching (questions which are of the heart and essence of the issue of the
free offer of the gospel) were not specifically faced as the Reformers concentrated their
attention on opposing the false views of Rome.
It is interesting to note, however, that when preaching was restored to its proper place
in the worship services, the Reformers, guided exclusively by the biblical givens and
considering the Scriptures to be the rule of faith and life also in their preaching,
returned to preaching as it originally existed in the Christian church. They began anew a
tradition of preaching which was present in the church in her earliest New Testament
history and which continues to be the distinguishing mark of all churches of the
Reformation that are faithful to their heritage. Preaching has, since the Reformation,
been outstanding feature of genuinely Protestant churches and has been the real and only
strength of those churches for almost five hundred years. If in today's ecclesiastical
world, radical changes are coming about in the place which the preaching occupies in the
worship services, in nature and character of the preaching, and in the contents of the
preaching, this is because today's church refuses be faithful to her Reformation heritage,
indeed, consciously departs from it.
In our consideration of the Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian controversy, we noticed that, while
question of the free offer of the gospel was not one of the issues, nevertheless,
doctrinal questions that are inseparably connected to the question of the free offer were
faced. Some of these questions were: the extent of the atonement, the particularity or
universality of grace, the intention of God with respect to salvation — whether His
intention is to save all or only those whom He Himself had chosen, and the related
question of God's will of decree and God's will of command and how these two stood in
relation to each other. Some of these doctrinal questions were issues at the time of the
Reformation; some of them were not. Although the Romish Church had adopted the
semi-Pelagian position, also with respect to the doctrine of the extent of the atonement,
this question concerning the atonement was not on the foreground during the battles of the
first half of the sixteenth century. Generally speaking, however, both the Reformers and
the Romish Church stood on the Anselmian tradition.4 But
other issues that stand connected with the free offer were discussed at considerable
length. We must be careful, however, that we do not attempt to interpret the Reformers and
their views in the light of our modern times and modern theological controversies. This is
a great danger whatever may be one's personal views of the free offer. All who wish to
appeal to Calvin especially and to the Reformers in general as their spiritual fathers
ought to be honest enough not to put words in the mouths of the Reformers and appeal
unjustly to them in support of views which we now believe and cherish, but which were far
from the minds of those who brought reformation to the church in the sixteenth century. We
can well bear in mind the remarks of William Cunningham, whom we quote at some length
because of the importance of what he has to say on this question.5
In almost all theological controversies, much space has been occupied by the discussion of extracts from books and documents adduced as authorities in support of the opinions maintained; and there is certainly no department of theological literature in which so much ability and learning, so much time and strength, have been uselessly wasted, or in which so much of controversial unfairness has been exhibited. Controversialists in general have shown an intense and irresistible desire to prove that their peculiar opinions were supported by the fathers, or by the Reformers, or by the great divines of their own church; and have often exhibited a great want both of wisdom and of candor in the efforts they have made to effect this object . . . . There is no man who has written much upon important and difficult subjects, and has not fallen occasionally into error, confusion, obscurity, and inconsistency; and there is certainly no body of men that have ever been appealed to as authorities, in whose writings a larger measure of these qualities is to be round than in those of the Fathers of the Christian church....
In adducing extracts from eminent
writers in support of their opinions, controversialists usually overlook or forget the
obvious consideration, that it is only the mature and deliberate conviction of a competent
judge upon the precise point under consideration that should be held as entitled to any
difference. When men have never, or scarcely ever, had present to their thoughts the
precise question that may have afterwards become a matter of dispute, when they have never
deliberately examined it, or given a formal and explicit deliverance regarding it, it will
usually follow, 1st, That it is difficult if not impossible to ascertain what they thought
about it, -- to collect this from incidental statements, or mere allusions, dropped when
they were treating of other topics; and, 2nd, That their opinion about it, if it could be
ascertained, would be of no weight or value. A large portion of the materials which have
been collected by controversialists as testimonies in favor of their opinions from eminent
writers, is at once swept away as useless and irrelevant, by the application of this
principle, the truth of this principle is so obvious, that it has passed into a sort of
proverb, "Auctoris aliud agenis parva est auctoritas." And yet
controversialists in general have continued habitually to disregard it, and to waste their
time in trying to bring the authority of eminent writers to bear upon questions that they
have never examined; and have not scrupled, in many cases, to have recourse or to make
them speak more plainly. The opinion even of Calvin, upon a point which he had never
carefully examined, and on which he has given no formal deliverance, is of no weight or
value, and would scarcely be worth examining; were it not that so much has been written
upon this subject, and that his views upon many points have been, and still are, so much
misrepresented.
In dealing with authorities,
then, it is necessary to ascertain, whether the authors referred to and quoted have really
formed and expressed an opinion upon the point, in regard to which their testimony is
adduced. It is necessary further to collect together, and to examine carefully and
deliberately, the whole of what they have written upon the subject under consideration,
that we may understand fully and accurately what their whole mind regarding it really was,
instead of trying to deduce it from a hasty glance at partial and incidental statements.
And in order to conduct this process of estimating and applying testimonies in a
satisfactory and successful way, it is also necessary, that we be familiar with the whole
import and bearing of the discussion on both sides, as it was present to the mind of the
author whose statements we are investigating. Without this knowledge, we shall be very apt
to misapprehend the true meaning and significance of what he has said, and to make it the
ground of unwarranted and erroneous inferences.... To manage aright this matter of the
adduction and application of testimonies or authorities requires an extent of knowledge, a
patience and caution in comparing and estimating materials, and an amount of candor and
tact, which few controversialists possess, and in which many of them are deplorably
deficient.
With these preliminary remarks we turn to a brief consideration of Luther's views on these matters relating to the free offer, and the views of subsequent Lutheranism.
One can search Luther's writings in vain for references either to the free offer of the
gospel or to those doctrines that have been related to the free offer. There is no solid
evidence that Luther himself wanted any part of any of these views.
In our search in Luther's writings for anything which relates to the question of the free
offer of the gospel, we came across one interesting passage in his "Bondage of the
Will" which might at first glance suggest something similar to a free offer. Luther
writes:
Therefore
it is rightly said, "If God does not desire our death, it is to be laid to the charge
of our own will, if we perish." This, I say, is right, if you speak of GOD PREACHED.
For he desires that all men should be saved (emphasis ours), seeing that, He comes unto
all by the word of salvation, and it is the fault of the will which does not receive Him:
as He said (Matthew
23:37). 6
Now it is interesting that one
has to search far and wide in the writings of this prolific author to find even one
statement that seems to suggest the idea of the free offer. But even here there is no
reference to the free offer as such, although Luther does express here that it is God's
desire to save all men. We ought to note, however, that this statement is found in a
section dealing with a discussion of Ezekiel
23:23, a passage which Erasmus appealed to in support of the doctrine of free will.
Erasmus argued that this passage teaches that God desired all men to be saved, that only
some are saved, that, therefore, the decision concerning salvation rests with the free
will of man. Luther repudiates this interpretation with all his soul and insists that the
expression, "God desires not the death of the sinner," is simply that promise of
God, found in a thousand places in Scripture, which is intended to comfort the hearts of
those who are troubled by their sin and fearful of the wrath of an Almighty God (pp.
166-168). But these are those who are already saved by the power of God's grace in their
hearts, i.e., those in whom the law has brought sorrow for sin and fears of death, and in
whom, therefore, the promises of the gospel are now worked (p. 170). But why is it that
some are so affected by the law and others are not? Luther himself answers:
But why it is, that some are touched by the law and some are not touched, why some receive the offered grace and some despise it, that is another question which is not here treated on by Ezekiel; because, he is speaking of THE PREACHED AND OFFERED MERCY OF GOD, not of that SECRET AND TO BE FEARED WILL OF GOD, who, according to his own counsel, ordained whom, and such as, He will to be receivers and partakers of the preached and offered mercy: which WILL, is not to be curiously inquired into, but to be adored with reverence as the most profound SECRET of the divine Majesty, which He reserves unto Himself and keeps hidden from us, and that, much more religiously than the mention of ten thousand Corycian Caverns (p. 171).
It is clear from all this that Luther interprets Ezekiel
23:23 as referring to God's people alone. This is very striking since this is exactly
one of the passages in Scripture that the defenders of the free offer have often appealed
to in support of their view. Nevertheless, Luther does not teach here that this passage
must be interpreted to mean that God wants all men to be saved. That he seems indeed to
contradict himself is true, but it must again be remembered that Luther was not facing
squarely the questions which later theologians faced after the whole doctrine of man's
free will had been taught and defended in the church.
Not only was Luther very strong on this question throughout his book, "The Bondage of
the Will," but he also was strong on such doctrines as the particularity of the
atonement, the harmony between the hidden and revealed will of God, and the particularity
of grace. All his writings that deal with these subjects reflect this emphasis.
Nevertheless, Lutheranism itself
did not remain in this tradition. This was in large measure due to the influence of
Melanchthon, Luther's co-worker and fellow reformer. We cannot enter into this question in
detail, but it is a well-known fact that Melanchthon, especially after Luther's death,
drifted away from the strong and sharp truths of sovereign grace as maintained by Luther
and introduced into Lutheran thinking synergism in the place of sovereign grace, a
synergism which taught that salvation was the cooperative work of God and man. This
weakness in later Lutheranism was reflected in the Lutheran Confessions,
particularly The Formula of Concord. In Article
XI, dealing with the subject of eternal predestination,
paragraphs 7 & 11, we read:
VII. But
Christ calls all sinners to Him, and promises to give them rest. And He earnestly wishes
that all men may come to Him, and suffer themselves to be cared for and succored. To these
He offers Himself in the Word as a Redeemer, and wishes that the Word may be heard, and
that their ears may not be hardened, nor the Word be neglected and contemned. And He
promises that He will bestow the virtue and operation of the Holy Spirit and divine aid,
to the end that we may abide steadfast in the faith and attain eternal life.
XI. But as to the declaration
(Matt. xxii. 14), "many are called, but few are chosen," it is not to be so
understood as if God were unwilling that all should be saved, but the cause of the
damnation of the ungodly is that they either do not hear the Word of God at all, but
contumaciously contemn it, stop their ears, and harden their hearts, and in this way
foreclose to the Spirit of God his ordinary way, so that he cannot accomplish his work in
them, or at least when they have heard the Word, make it of no account, and cast it away.
Neither God nor His election, but their own wickedness, is to blame if they perish (II Pet. 2: l
sqq.; Luke
2: 49, 52; Heb. 12: 25
sqq.).
These
ideas come out perhaps even more strongly in the negative section of this article:
. . .
1. That
God is unwilling that all men should repent and believe the Gospel.
2. That
when God calls us to Him He does not earnestly wish that all men should come to Him.
3. That
God is not willing that all should be saved, but that some men are destined to
destruction, not on account of their sin, but by the mere counsel, purpose, and will of
God, so that they cannot in any wise attain to salvation.
Luther himself would have
violently disagreed with these statements, and it is striking that the theology of the
free offer does not appear as an integral part of Luther's thought, but as a doctrinal
formulation brought into Lutheranism under the weakening influence of Melanchthonian
synergism.
John
Calvin
It is not our purpose to enter
into detail on the question of the teachings of John Calvin on this subject of the free
offer. Much ink has been spilled, much fierce argumentation has echoed in ecclesiastical
halls, and much disagreement has torn apart Reformed believers on this question. Our
relatively short discussion of Calvin's views is justified on three grounds. First, Calvin
himself never faced specifically and concretely the question of the free offer of the
gospel any more than did Luther. As we remarked in the early part of this chapter, the
nature and character of the preaching was not an issue between the Reformers and the
Romish church. Although there are innumerable passages in Calvin's writings which make use
of the word "offer," -- and we shall comment on this a bit later -- the
actual theology of the free offer was a question which Calvin did not face. The issue of
the free offer arose over a half-century later. To interpret Calvin, therefore, in the
light of subsequent controversies over the free offer is to read into Calvin something
that is not there. We remind our readers of the warnings of Wm. Cunningham which we quoted
earlier.
Second, it is clear from all
Calvin's writings that he militated against all the ideas that have become such an
integral part of free offer theology. We hope to show this briefly, but it can safely be
said that every one of the doctrines which form a part of the teachings of the free offer
were expressly and specifically refuted by Calvin at one point or another in his writings.
Taking all of Calvin's views into account and the whole genius of his theology, one can
only conclude that present day ideas of the free offer were foreign to Calvin's thinking.
The most that can be said is that is some respects Calvin used ambiguous language,
especially if we are determined to weigh this language in the light of subsequent
theological discussions, and that Calvin made, again in the light of modern-day
controversies, statements which appear contradictory to the main emphasis of his theology.
Third, there have been others
who have written on this subject and who have proved beyond doubt that Calvin wanted no
part of what today goes under the name of the free offer. We refer to such writings as: "Calvin,
Berkhof and H.
J. Kuiper, A Comparison,"
by Rev. H. Hoeksema (published in pamphlet form by the Reformed Free Publishing
Association); "De Kracht Gods Tot Zaligheid, Genade Geen Aanbod," (The
Power of God unto Salvation: Grace No Offer), also by H. Hoeksema (published in
pamphlet form by the R.F.P.A.); "Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the
Gospel," by Prof. D. Engelsma (published in book form and available from the
R.F.P.A.).
Concerning
Calvin's use of the term "offer," we agree with Engelsma when he writes:
It is of
no consequence, therefore, that the term "offer" appears in Calvin, in other
Reformed theologians, and in such Reformed creeds as the Canons of Dort and the
Westminster Confession of Faith. The word "offer" had originally a sound
meaning: "serious call," "presentation of Christ." We are
fundamentally uninterested in warring over words. No, but we are interested to ask
concerning the doctrine of the offer: is it Reformed? 7
To
demonstrate our contention that Calvin inveighed against all doctrines associated with the
free offer, we quote first of all from Calvin's Institutes.
In
Book III, Chapter 22, Section 10 Calvin writes:
It is
objected by some that God will be inconsistent with Himself, if He invites all men
universally to come to Him, and receives only a few elect. Thus, according to them, the
universality of the promises destroys the discrimination of special grace . . . .
How the Scripture reconciles these two facts, that by external preaching all are called to
repentance and faith, and yet that the spirit of repentance and faith is not given to all,
I have elsewhere stated, and shall soon have occasion partly to repeat. What they assume,
I deny as being false in two respects. For he who threatens drought in one city while it
rains upon another, and who denounces to another place a famine of doctrine, lays himself
under no positive obligation to call all men alike. And he who, forbidding Paul to preach
the Word in Asia, and suffering him not to go into Bithynia, calls him into Macedonia,
demonstrates his right to distribute this treasure to whom he pleases. In Isaiah, he still
more fully declares his destination of the promises of salvation exclusively for the
elect; for of them only, and not indiscriminately of all mankind, he declares that they
shall be his disciples (Isaiah 8:16).
Whence it appears, that when the doctrine of salvation is offered to all for their
effectual benefit, it is a corrupt prostitution of that which is declared to be reserved
particularly for the children of the church.
In
Chapter 24, Section 1 of the same Book, Calvin writes:
But,
in order to a further elucidation of the subject, it is necessary to treat of the calling
of the elect, and of the blinding and hardening of the impious. On the former I have
already made a few observations, with a view to refute the error of those who propose the
generality of the promises to put all mankind on an equality. But the discriminating
election of God, which is otherwise concealed within himself, he manifests only by his
calling, which may therefore with propriety be termed the testification or evidence of it.
Calvin
then goes on to show how the Scriptures teach that there is a perfect unity between the
truth of sovereign election and the calling of the gospel.
Calvin
even speaks in more than one place of the sovereign purpose of God in the preaching of the
gospel to harden the reprobate. For example, he writes in Section 8 of the same chapter:
The
declaration of Christ, that "many are called, and few chosen," is very
improperly understood. For there will be no ambiguity in it if we remember what must be
clear from the foregoing observations, that there are two kinds of calling. For there is a
universal call, by which God, in the external preaching of the Word, invites all,
indiscriminately, to come to him, even those to whom he intends it as a savour of
deaths and an occasion of heavier condemnation (italics ours).
In
Section 12 he writes:
As the
Lord by his effectual calling of the elect, completes the salvation to which he
predestinated them in his eternal counsel, so he has his judgments against the reprobate,
by which he executes his counsel respecting them. Those, therefore, whom he has created to
a life of shame and a death of destruction, that they might be instruments of his wrath,
and examples of his severity, he causes to reach their appointed end, sometimes depriving
them of the opportunity of hearing the Word, sometimes, by the preaching of it,
increasing their blindness and stupidity (italics ours).
In
Section 13 he writes:
Why,
then, in bestowing grace upon some, does he pass over others? Luke assigns a reason for
the former, that they "were ordained to eternal life." What conclusion, then,
shall we draw respecting the latter, but that they are vessels of wrath to dishonor? .
. .. It is a fact not to be doubted that God sends his Word to many whose blindness he
determines shall be increased. For with what design does he direct so many commands to be
delivered to Pharaoh? Was it from an expectation that his heart would be softened by
repeated and frequent messages? Before he began, he knew and foretold the results. He
commanded Moses to go and declare his will to Pharaoh, adding at the same time, "But
I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go" (Exodus 4:21).
In
Section 15 Calvin writes concerning a passage referred to often by defenders of the free
offer of the gospel.
But as objections are frequently
raised from some passages of Scripture, in which God seems to deny that the destruction of
the wicked is caused by his decree, but that, in opposition to his remonstrances they
voluntarily bring ruin upon themselves, -- let us show by a brief explication that
they are not at all inconsistent with the foregoing doctrine. A passage is produced from
Ezekiel, where God says, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the
wicked turn from his way and live" (Ezekiel
33:11). If this is to be extended to all mankind, why does he not urge many to
repentance, whose minds are more flexible to obedience than those of others who grow more
and more callous to his daily invitations? Among the inhabitants of Ninevah and Sodom,
Christ himself declares that his evangelical preaching and miracles would have brought
forth more fruit than in Judea. How is it, then, if God will have all men to be saved,
that he opens not the gate of repentance to those miserable men who would be more ready to
receive the favor? Hence we perceive it to be a violent perversion of the passage, if the
will of God, mentioned by the prophet, be set in opposition to his eternal counsel, by
which he has distinguished the elect from the reprobate. Now if we inquire the genuine
sense of the prophet: his only meaning is to inspire the penitent with hopes of pardon.
And this is the sum that it is beyond a doubt that God is ready to pardon sinners
immediately on their conversion. Therefore he wills not their death, in as much as he
wills their repentance. But experience teaches, that he does not will the repentance of
those whom he externally calls, in such a manner as to effect all their hearts. Nor should
he on this account be charged with acting deceitfully; for, though his external call only
renders those who hear without obeying it inexcusable, yet it is justly esteemed the
testimony of God's grace, by which he reconciles men to himself. Let us observe,
therefore, the design of the prophet in saying that God has no pleasure in the death of a
sinner; it is to assure the pious of God's readiness to pardon them immediately on their
repentance and to show the impious the aggravation of their sin in rejecting such great
compassion and kindness of God. Repentance, therefore, will always be met by Divine mercy,
but on whom repentance is bestowed, we are clearly taught by Ezekiel himself, as well as
by all the prophets and apostles.
While
we could multiply similar passages from the Institutes, we turn now to Calvin's
treatise on "The Eternal Predestination of God."8
In this
treatise on predestination Calvin writes:
All this Pighius loudly denies, adducing that passage of the apostle (I Tim.2:4): who will have all men to be saved and, referring also to Ezekiel 18:23, he argues thus, "That God willeth not the death of a sinner," may be taken upon His own oath, where He says by that prophet, "As I live, saith the Lord, I have no pleasure in the wicked that dieth but rather that he should return from his way and live." Now we reply, that as the language of the prophet here is an exhortation to repentance, it is not at all marvelous in him to declare that God willeth all men to be saved. For the mutual relation between threats and promises shows that such forms of speaking are conditional. In this same manner God declared to the Ninevites, and to the kings of Gerar and Egypt, that He would do that which in reality, He did not intend to do, for their repentance averted the punishment which He had threatened to inflict upon them. Whence it is evident that the punishment was denounced on condition of their remaining obstinate and impenitent. And yet, the denunciation of the punishment was positive, as if it had been an irrevocable decree. But after God had terrified them with the apprehension of His wrath, and had duly humbled them as not being utterly desperate, He encourages them with the hope of pardon that they might feel that there was yet left open a space for remedy. Just so it is with respect to the conditional promises of God, which God has decreed in His secret counsel, but declare only what God is ready to do to all those who are brought to faith and repentance.
But men untaught of God,
not understanding these things, allege that we hereby attribute to God a two-fold or
double will. Whereas God is so far from being variable, that no shadow of variableness
appertains to Him, even in the most remote degree. Hence Pighius, ignorant of the Divine
nature of these deep things, thus argued; "What else is this but making God a mocker
of men, if God is represented as really not willing that which He professes to will, and
as not having pleasure in that in which He in reality has pleasure?" But if these two
members of the sentence be read in conjunction, as they ever ought to be
-- "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked;" and, "But that the
wicked turn from his way and live" read these two propositions in connection
with each other, and the calumny is washed off at once. God requires of us this
conversion, or "turning away from our iniquity," and in whomsoever He finds it
He disappoints not such an one of the promised reward of eternal life. Wherefore, God is
as much said to have pleasure in, and to will, this eternal life, as to have pleasure in
the repentance; and He has pleasure in the latter, because He invites all men to it by His
word. Now all this is in perfect harmony with His secret and eternal counsel, by which He
decreed to convert none but His own elect. None but God's elect, therefore, ever do turn
from their wickedness. And yet, the adorable God is not, on these accounts to be
considered variable or capable of change, because, as a Lawgiver He enlightens all men
with the external doctrine of conditional life. But in the latter case, He brings
unto eternal life those whom He willed according to His eternal purpose, regenerating
by His Spirit, as an eternal Father, His own children only.
It is quite certain that men do
not "turn from their evil ways" to the Lord of their own accord, not by any
instinct of nature. Equally certain is it that the gift of conversion is not to all men;
because this is that one of the two covenants which God promises that He will not make
with any but His own children and His own elect people concerning whom He has recorded His
promise that "He will write His law in their hearts" (Jeremiah
31:33). Now a man must be utterly beside himself to assert that this promise is
made to all men generally and indiscriminately. (This italics is ours.)9
It is
clear from these quotes, and they could be multiplied, that Calvin expressly repudiates
the theology of the free offer of the gospel.
An
integral part of the theology of the free offer of the gospel is the doctrine of a certain
universality of the atonement of Christ. It has been maintained in recent times that
Calvin taught a universal atonement, and various references in Calvin's writings have been
quoted to substantiate this view. That the question of a universal atonement is closely
connected to the question of the free offer of the gospel is evident from the fact
that wherever the free offer of the gospel has been taught the universality of the
atonement of Christ has become an inseparable companion doctrine. It is true that those
who wish to remain identified as Calvinists in distinction from Arminians will point out
that they do not believe certainly in a universal efficacy of the atonement. But
they will still defend a universal atonement at least with respect to sufficiency
and almost always with respect to intention and availability
It has been contended very
frequently and very confidently, that Calvin did not sanction the views which have
been generally held by Calvinistic divines, in regard to the extent of the atonement,
>-- that he did not believe in the doctrine of particular redemption, that is, that
Christ did not die for all men, but only for the elect, and for those who are actually
saved, -- but that, on the contrary, he asserted a universal, unlimited, or indefinite
atonement. Amyraut, in defending his doctrine of universal atonement in combination with
Calvinistic views upon other points, appealed confidently to the authority of Calvin.
It is certain that Beza
held to the doctrine of particular redemption, or of a limited atonement, as it has since
been held by most Calvinists, and brought it out fully in his controversies with the
Lutherans on the subject of predestination, though he was not, as has sometimes been
asserted, the first who maintained it. It has been confidently alleged that Calvin did not
concur in this view, but held the opposite doctrine of universal redemption and unlimited
atonement. Now it is true, that we do not find in Calvin's writings explicit statements as
to any limitation in the object of the atonement, or in the number of those for whom
Christ died . . .. Of all the passages in Calvin's writings bearing more or less directly
upon this subject, -- which we remember to have read or seen produced on either side, --
there is only one, which, with anything like confidence, can be regarded as formally and
explicitly denying an unlimited atonement; and notwithstanding all the pains that have
been taken to bring out the views of Calvin upon this question, we do not recollect to
have seen it adverted to except by a single popish writer. It occurs in his treatise, "De
vera participatione Christi in coena," in reply to Hushusius, a violent Lutheran
defender of the corporal presence of Christ in the eucharist. The passage is this: -- "Scire
velim quomodo Christi carnem edant impii pro quivus non est crucifixa, et quyomodo
sanguinem bibant qui extiandis eorum peccatis non est effusus." This is a very
explicit denial of the universality of the atonement. But it stands alone, -- so far as we
know, in Calvin's writings . . .. The
topic was not then formally discussed as a distinct subject of controversy; and Calvin
does not seem to have been ever led, in discussing cognate questions, to take up this one
and to give a deliverance regarding it. We believe that no sufficient evidence has been
brought forward that Calvin held that Christ died for all men, or for the whole world, in
any such sense as to warrant Calvinistic universalists, -- that is, men who, though
holding Calvinistic doctrines upon other points, yet believe in a universal or unlimited
atonement, -- in asserting that he sanctioned their peculiar principles.
There is not, then, we are persuaded, satisfactory evidence that Calvin held the doctrine of a universal, unlimited, or indefinite atonement. And, moreover, we consider ourselves warranted in asserting, that there is sufficient evidence that he did not hold this doctrine; though on the grounds formerly explained, and with the one exception already adverted to, it is not evidence which bears directly and immediately upon this precise point. The evidence of this position is derived chiefly from the following two considerations.
1st. Calvin consistently,
unhesitatingly, and explicitly denied the doctrine of God's universal grace and love to
all men -- that is, "omnibus et singulis," to each and every man, -- as
implying in some sense a desire of purpose or intention to save them all; and with this
universal grace or love to all men the doctrine of a universal or unlimited atonement, in
the nature of the case, and in the convictions and admissions of all its supporters,
stands inseparably connected. That Calvin denied the doctrine of God's universal grace or
love to all men, as implying some desire or intention of saving them all, and some
provision directed to that object, is too evident to anyone who has read his writings to
admit of doubt or to require proof. We are not aware that the doctrine of a universal
atonement ever has been maintained, even by men who were in other respects Calvinistic,
except in conjunction and in connection with an assertion of God's universal grace or love
to all men. And it is manifestly impossible that it should be otherwise, if Christ died
for all men, pro omnibus et singulis, -- this must have been in some sense an
expression or indication of a desire or intention on the part of God, and of a provision
made by Him, directed to the object of saving them all, though frustrated in its effect,
by their refusal to embrace the provision made for and offered to them. A universal
atonement, or the death of Christ for all men, -- that is, for each and every man,
necessarily implies this, and would be an anomaly in the divine government without it. No
doubt, it may be said, that the doctrine of a universal atonement necessitates, in logical
consistency, a denial of the Calvinistic doctrine of election, as much as it necessitates
an admission of God's universal grace or love to all men; and we believe this to be true.
But still, when we find that, in point of fact, none has ever held the doctrine of
universal atonement without holding also the doctrine of universal grace, -- while it is
certain that some men of distinguished ability and learning, such as Amyraut and Daillee,
Davenant and Baxter, have held both these doctrines of universal atonement and universal
grace, and at the same time have held the Calvinistic doctrine of election; we are surely
called upon in fairness and modesty to admit, that the logical connection cannot be quite
so direct and certain in the one case as in the other. And then this conclusion warrants
us in maintaining, that the fact that Calvin so explicitly denies the doctrine of God's
universal grace or love to all men, affords a more direct and certain ground for the
inference, that he did not hold the doctrine of universal atonement, than could be
legitimately deduced from the mere fact, that he held the doctrine of unconditional
personal election to everlasting life. The invalidity of the inferential process in the
one case is not sufficient to establish its invalidity in the other; and therefore our
argument holds good.10
With
this important statement of Cunningham we are in complete agreement. But in the course of
proving that there is, in Calvin's writings, abundant proof that Calvin did not hold to
the doctrine of universal atonement Cunningham makes several other important observations
to which we ought briefly to call attention. In the first place, Cunningham, and correctly
so, insists that Calvin "consistently, unhesitatingly, and explicitly denied the
doctrine of God's universal grace and love to all men." We have earlier called
attention to the fact that there are more recent defenders of the free offer of the gospel
who have attempted to prove that Calvin indeed taught a universal grace and love of God.
Cunningham denies this, and we believe Cunningham is right. In the second place,
Cunningham also points out that Calvin in no sense of the word taught a desire or purpose
or intention of God to save all men, an idea that is the very heart of the theology of the
free offer. In fact, Cunningham insists that he can rest his case of Calvin's denial of
universal atonement upon Calvin's repudiation of this entire idea. How much more strongly
can it be put? That Calvin denied all this "is too evident to anyone who has read his
writings, to admit of doubt or to require proof." Cunningham understood Calvin. Would
that more modern defenders of the free offer would have the same clear conception of what
Calvin taught. And history has proved Cunningham correct that the idea of a free offer of
the gospel is inseparably connected with the idea of a general grace and love of God to
all men and a universal atonement accomplished by Jesus Christ.
Cunningham further proves his thesis that Calvin repudiated the doctrine of a universal atonement by quoting from Calvin's commentary on I Timothy 2:4 and I John 2:2. Cunningham's argument is that Calvin interprets some "of the principle texts on which the advocates of that doctrine rest it, in such a way as to deprive them of all capacity of serving the purpose to which its supporters commonly apply them." We give here the pertinent quotations from Calvin's commentaries rather than directly from Cunningham because Cunningham quotes them in Latin.11 We quote only that part of Calvin's remarks on this verse which are quoted in Cunningham.
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 of 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 (Commentary on I Timothy 2:4).
Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretense extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself. Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation. They who seek to avoid this absurdity,have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world. For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only true salvation of the world (Commentary on I John 2:2).
Cunningham concludes his discussion of this subject with the remarks:
He gives the very same explanation of these two passages in his treatise on "Predestination." Now this is in substance just the interpretation commonly given of these and similar texts, by the advocates of the doctrine of particular redemption; and it seems scarcely possible, that it should have been adopted by one who did not hold that doctrine, or who believed in the truth of the opposite one.
From all this it is clear that Calvin did not only not teach the
doctrines which form an inseparable part of the free offer of the gospel, but that he was
at great pains to contradict such doctrines and refute them with the power of the
Scriptures. Anyone who has read Calvin will have to admit that efforts to appeal to him in
support of the free offer are useless.
From all this, several conclusions can be made. 1) Calvin repeatedly used the word
"offer" and by it often meant to express the fact that the Christ in Whom alone
is salvation is presented to men through the preaching of the gospel. With this no one
disagrees. 2) Calvin emphasizes very strongly that, through the general
proclamation of the gospel to all, the command comes also to all to repent of sin, turn
from evil and believe in Christ. Also with this truth no one disagrees. 3) But with
respect to the doctrines of the offer, the genius of Calvin's theology repeatedly
militates against the offer. Calvin wants no part of a double will in God that is in
conflict with itself, according to which God, on the one hand, determines to save only His
elect, but, on the other hand, wills to save all. Calvin, if Cunningham is right, and we
believe that he is, wanted nothing of a universal love or grace of God that is shown to
all. Perhaps passages can be quoted here and there in Calvin's writings to suggest such
ideas but Calvin's theology militates against it. 4) While, finally, Calvin did
not write extensively on the question of the extent of the atonement, what he did write
surely shows conclusively that Calvin taught an atonement limited only to the elect.
Return to Table of Contents
Go to Chapter 3
Foot-Notes
5 W. Cunningham, The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation (Banner of Truth, 1979), pp. 400ff.
6 Edition of 1931 by Win. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., p. 173.
7 D.
Engelsma, Hyper-Calvinism and the Call of the Gospel, p. 81.
8 We
quote from the edition of Henry Cole, published by Wm.B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1956, in the book, Calvin's Calvinism. This book contains two
treatises of Calvin, the other, "A Defence of the Secret Providence of God."
The former, on predestination, was written particularly in connection with the Bolsec
controversy. Bolsec disrupted the ecclesiastical life of Geneva with sometimes violent
attacks against the truth of sovereign predestination. Calvin's treatise was sent to the
other Protestant cantons of Switzerland but never received full approval from them. It has
become know as the Consensus Genevensis, and is perhaps Calvin's clearest
statement on the truth of sovereign predestination. A reprint of Calvin's Calvinism is
available from the R.F.P.A. publishing.
9 Op.cit.pp. 98-100.
10 Op. cit., pp. 395ff.
11
We quote from the translation of Rev. W. Pringle, published by
Win. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. in 1948.