# Calvin and Limited Atonement



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 20, 2008)

Can anyone point me to some citations from the Institutes or other writings by Calvin that show definitively that Calvin believed in Limited Atonement?

Thanks!!!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jul 21, 2008)

bump


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jul 21, 2008)

have you read this?


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jul 21, 2008)

> [169] It is evident that is the many hoi polloi, include those connected
> with the two parties — the many descendants of Adam, and the many believers
> in Christ. And “the many” was adopted to form a contrast with the “one.”
> “The many” are termed “all” in verse Romans 5:18, and again, “the many,” in
> ...



From Calvin's commentaries - Romans 5:15


----------



## VictorBravo (Jul 21, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> > [169] It is evident that is the many hoi polloi, include those connected
> > with the two parties — the many descendants of Adam, and the many believers
> > in Christ. And “the many” was adopted to form a contrast with the “one.”
> > “The many” are termed “all” in verse Romans 5:18, and again, “the many,” in
> ...



Just a point of clarification for the casual popcorn munchers: as JD indicated with the "Ed." at the end, the quote is an editorial comment and not Calvin's words on Romans 5:15.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Jul 21, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Can anyone point me to some citations from the Institutes or other writings by Calvin that show definitively that Calvin believed in Limited Atonement?



Scholars are divided on whether Calvin adhered to LA. (For a good succinct and clear summary of the debate see Andrew McGowan's book _The Federal Theological of Thomas Boston_). Part of the problem is reading a more developed understanding of particular redemption (of say Owen) back into the earlier Calvin. Sure, the topic had been debated before (e.g. Gottschalk) and during (e.g. Bucer) Calvin's life; he was aware of issues surrounding the extent of the atonement. However, the tradition continued to develop after him.

It's clear to me that Calvin didn't fit the Owenian schema. See all of these quotations here.


----------



## Gesetveemet (Jul 21, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Can anyone point me to some citations from the Institutes or other writings by Calvin that show definitively that Calvin believed in Limited Atonement?
> 
> Thanks!!!






Read this.

“John Calvin's Position on the Atonement” by Paul Helm


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Jul 22, 2008)

Gesetveemet said:


> Read this.
> 
> “John Calvin's Position on the Atonement” by Paul Helm



Helm's argument, in my opinion, is limited. He has some good thoughts but as I see it his problem is twofold:

[1] He reads later developed ideas back into Calvin.

[2] He doesn't take into account many many sayings of Calvin that disprove his thesis.

McGowan's rendition of the debate is excellent. Helm jumped into the debate fairly early on. Much water has flowed under the bridge since then.

Cheers.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jul 24, 2008)

I thought this was interesting: from his commentaries 1 John 2:2:



> 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. Sucha monstrous thing deserves no refutation. *They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ [63] 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 common 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.


----------



## Marrow Man (Jul 24, 2008)

Ben, I believe Robert Peterson's _Calvin and the Atonement_ (I believe that is the name, going on memory) would also be profitable for you to read on this subject.


----------



## mybigGod (Jul 24, 2008)

panta dokimazete said:


> I thought this was interesting: from his commentaries 1 John 2:2:
> 
> 
> 
> > 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. Sucha monstrous thing deserves no refutation. *They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ [63] 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 common 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.



The difference in Calvin is the amount of time he talks about this. Maybe he acknowledged it to be true but its not really discussed in his other writings on election. Its not a staple arguement for him like it is in the modern day discussion on the doctrine of election.
I listen all the time on cd to his election and reprobation. I dont believe by his acknowlegement that he embraced the idea as a staple argument. 

I think its sorta like his discussion on free will. One has the freedom to choose for himself under the bondage of sin. He says if you want to call that will free then go ahead.


----------

