# Did Calvin hold to Limited Atonement?



## Dachaser (Sep 13, 2019)

Sometimes it seems that he was holding to more of the unlimited viewpoint.


----------



## timfost (Sep 13, 2019)

The term "limited atonement" is not even found in our confessions. Our confessions generally speak in terms of Christ's _satisfaction_. The term works nicely as a mnemonic device (TULIP) but doesn't capture the complexity and diversity among the Reformed. 

Calvin himself doesn't spend a huge amount of time giving us a cut-and-dry answer to the question, but it seems that he employed the "sufficient for all, efficient or the elect alone" formula. He affirms this in his commenary on 1 John 2:2, though he didn't apply the doctrine to the verse itself. He also assumes it quite strongly in _Institutes _3.24.17.

In a nutshell, those who employ the sufficient/efficient formula can say that _in a sense _Christ died for all in terms of the sufficiency of His satisfaction and _in a sense_ only for the elect in terms of the efficacy of the same.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Sep 13, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> Sometimes it seems that he was holding to more of the unlimited viewpoint.



Brother, if you are going to start a thread that suggests a theologian swayed between unlimited and limited atonement, please provide sources, preferably primary but secondary would suffice. I know there has been a lot of ink spilled on this topic, but sources foster fruitful discussions. If you can't, I will be happy to provide some later. In the meantime, these should give you a starting place:

https://www.apuritansmind.com/arminianism/john-calvins-view-of-limited-atonement/

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/did-calvin-believe-in-unlimited-atonement.11871/

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser (Sep 13, 2019)

Reformed Bookworm said:


> Brother, if you are going to start a thread that suggests a theologian swayed between unlimited and limited atonement, please provide sources, preferably primary but secondary would suffice. I know there has been a lot of ink spilled on this topic, but sources foster fruitful discussions. If you can't, I will be happy to provide some later. In the meantime, these should give you a starting place:
> 
> https://www.apuritansmind.com/arminianism/john-calvins-view-of-limited-atonement/
> 
> https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/did-calvin-believe-in-unlimited-atonement.11871/


Thanks!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 13, 2019)

Unpopular opinion: Modern conceptions of the historic Reformed understanding of the atonement are much too simplistic.

I suspect that the influence of John Murray and Banner of Truth has led many to believe that the only acceptable Reformed opinions are the well-meant offer on the one hand, and Strict Particularism on the other. I find this situation somewhat incongruous because the well-meant offer fits better with Hypothetical Universalism and Strict Particularism would seem to logically demand that you reject the well-meant offer. (William Twisse, however, may have held to HU while denying the WMO, but I need to read more of him on the former subject. I cannot say that I am looking forward to it as Twisse was an odd fish ... as you can see from some of my recent threads. ) Thus, many of us do not know what to do when we come across things in the Reformed scholastics that neither sits well with the well-meant offer nor with Strict Particularism.

Historically speaking, the Reformed confessions seem to have accommodated a variety of viewpoints. For this reason, I applaud the work of groups like the Davenant Institute, even if their views do not always represent my personal opinions (which are Strict Particularism and a rejection of the WMO), for causing us to think in a more sophisticated manner about such questions.


----------

