John Calvin on Limited Atonement by Peter Lumpkins

  It remains strange how many Calvinists seem to suggest that Calvinism is such a natural hermeneutic when it comes to interpreting Scripture. Sometimes one gets the impression from strict Calvinists that the classic five points are so clear, so basic, and so incontrovertibly biblical that to question any single petal of the TULIP is to question Scripture itself...the gospel itself...>>>

More interesting is the theological ambiguity which Calvinism’s founder, John Calvin, possessed toward at least one of the famous five points—Limited Atonement. As the selected quotes from Calvin’s Commentaries will show, Calvin evidently did not hold to the unalterable view of Definite Atonement that his modern day disciples have inherited.

The quotes are taken from Calvin’s Commentaries available here and the Scripture passages are from the ESV.

First, in Matthew 26.28 [Mark 14:24], as Christ instituted the Holy Supper, He spoke to His disciples these words: “for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” Of the blood that would be poured out for the “many” Calvin writes:

“By the word many he means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race; for he contrasts many with one; as if he had said, that he will not be the Redeemer of one man only, but will die in order to deliver many from the condemnation of the curse...when we approach to the holy table, let us not only remember in general that the world has been redeemed by the blood of Christ, but let every one consider for himself that his own sins have been expiated.” (All emphasis now and throughout, mine). 

Second, when John the Apostle pointed others to the Messiah, he cried: “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.” (John 1.29). Calvin’s comment is instructive. He writes:

“And when he says, the sin Of The World, he extends this favor indiscriminately to the whole human race… and that as all men without exception are guilty of unrighteousness before God…Now our duty is, to embrace the benefit which is offered to all, that each of us may be convinced that there is nothing to hinder him from obtaining reconciliation in Christ, provided that he comes to him by the guidance of faith.”

Third, Calvin writes of John 3. 14-16:

“…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…And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life…”

Observe Calvin who notes that all are invited “without exception” not merely “without distinction” as some seem prone to suggest.

Fourth, one of the things that Jesus said the Holy Spirit would accomplish when He came from the Father would be to convict the “world” of sin. John records: “And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me…” (John 16.8-11).

Of this verse, Calvin comments:

“…Under the term world are, I think, included not only those who would be truly converted to Christ, but hypocrites and reprobates.”

Here the Holy Spirit, according to Calvin, works conviction in the hearts of all men.

Fifth, moving on to a significant verse in the Apostle Paul, we find: “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.” (Romans 5.18). Here, Calvin is most clear. He writes:

“He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him.”

Sixth, Paul records in Galatians these words concerning those who hindered the believer’s walk with God: “I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!” (Gal.5.12). In a lengthy comment, Calvin seems most clear what he thinks the Apostle has in mind. But even clearer is Calvin’s insistence Christ paid for the sins of the whole world. Note Calvin’s words carefully:

“His indignation proceeds still farther, and he prays for destruction on those impostors by whom the Galatians had been deceived. The word, "cut off," appears to be employed in allusion to the circumcision which they pressed. "They tear the church for the sake of circumcision: I wish they were entirely cut off." Chrysostom favors this opinion. But how can such an imprecation be reconciled with the mildness of an apostle, who ought to wish that all should be saved, and that not a single person should perish? So far as men are concerned, I admit the force of this argument; for it is the will of God that we should seek the salvation of all men without exception, as Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world.” 

Seventh, Paul again writes of forgiveness in the Colossians correspondence. Says the Apostle: “in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” (Col.1.14). Hear Calvin’s clear comment about exactly whose sin Christ expiated:

“He says that this redemption was procured through the blood of Christ, for by the sacrifice of his death all the sins of the world have been expiated.”

These represent some of the many statements in John Calvin that cause not a little difficulty for those who not only believe the Geneva don himself unwaveringly embraced the doctrine of Limited Atonement, but also those who themselves unwaveringly hold to the questionable doctrine. It appears at least odd that modern strict Calvinists apparently are, at least in some ways, more Calvinist than John Calvin.

With that, I am…

Peter

Comments

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Peter,

John Calvin sounds like an Arminian. :)

Blessings,
Tim

[peter lumpkins]

Well, good old James Arminius thought Calvin was Arminian. Or rather JA thought himself a Calvinist! Same difference :^)

With that, I am...
Peter

[Carrie]

Peter are you at all familiar with Tony Byrne's blog? He has been saying these things for years now. There is a mountain of evidence at his blog that not only Calvin, but many very influential people in reformed/reformation thought, held to this very view regarding the atonement. And Tony, (like myself) is a Calvinist and he (like myself) believe as Calvin did regarding these particular passages of Scripture.

This is the historic (or classic, or moderate, or middle way or whatever other label that has been applied to it) view of Calvinism. Again, there is an Everest of information on this at his blog.

Believing that Christ died for all men (not just the elect) and moreover redeemed all men, is perfectly consistent with Calvinistic soteriology.

It just isn't with a strict or particular view of the atonement. But that strict/particular view isn't all encompassing of Calvinism.

[RL Adler]

it's tragic that Beza's propensity for determinism quickly destroyed any semblance of Calvin's moderate philosophy. its doubly tragic that the reformed continue to take 'Calvinism' (or rather 'Bezaism') to it's logical conclusion of fatalism rather than let the scriptures speak in simple tension. snap out of it already!

[peter lumpkins]

Carrie,

Yes I am familiar with Tony. Perhaps his assembly of evidence is the largest--or at least among the largest--on the net. Dr. David Allen makes the case well against Limited Atonement in Whosoever Will and uses only self-professing Calvinists to do so!

Thanks.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Carrie]

Oh ok! Well glad to know you are aware of the many views within the Calvinistic scheme.

[Mary]

So John Calvin's not a Calvinist? Who knew? Maybe he was only pretending to be a Calvinist so as to make all the real 5 pointers look bad. I saw that conspiricy theory posted on a very influential official SBC Voice blog. There are now people claiming to be Calvinist who are not really Calvinist and they go around lying on Baptist blogs all to make the real Calvinist look bad. Well we all know that you cannot be a Calvinist unless you're a 5 pointer - that's what the real Calvinist say and only a real genuine Calvinist understands things like Calvinism, the Gospel and idolatry.

[Bobby Capps]

Here's my BIG question: how can Jesus damn someone for a sin he already paid for? To me, that's the insolvable question regarding Calvary's work, if it is for all. Any help? PS and can you give it to me in "country boy" English? I'm not thick but I get lost in some of the lofty lingo.

[peter lumpkins]

Bobby,

Thanks.  I understand. Dr. David Allen does a masterful job in Whosoever Will (pp.83-92) dealing with precisely what you bring up by acknowledging,

“Probably the key theological argument to support limited atonement is the double payment argument, famously propounded by Owen, which basically says that justice does not allow the same sin to be punished twice” (p.83).

Your version is very similar: “how can Jesus damn someone for a sin he already paid for?”

Allen offers a thorough criticism of Owen (and response to your question), many criticisms of which are taken from within the mainstream Reformed academic community itself. Perhaps most basic as a response is to acknowledge that your question assumes what Andrew Fuller called a “literal payment of a debt” confusing a commercial debt and penal satisfaction for sin. In other words, if one’s debt is literally paid, then salvation is no longer grace; instead salvation is owed and therefore a right. As Allen rightly says,

“God would be making counterfeit offers to the non-elect (they cannot be saved anyway according to strict Calvinism), and God would be making counterfeit threats of perishing to the unbelieving elect since there is no longer any legal grounds for their remaining under condemnation” (pp.85-86).

As I said, Dr. Allen does a superb job exploring this aspect of the atonement. He demonstrates that not only is the “double-payment” theory of the atonement John Owen contributed to the debate a minority position in Reformed theology, its chief critics have been straight from mainstream Reformed theology. It’s unfortunate today many Calvinists with whom I converse seem to be unaware that Owen’s ‘double-payment’ theory was a novelty teaching on the atonement. Instead they assume the Owenic view is the Reformed view. James Packer’s introductory essay to the reprint of Owen’s Death of Death has perhaps perpetuated this myth as much as any other single source.

Hope that helps, Bobby.

With that, I am…

Peter

[John Wilson]

It is truly sad that so many people try to get around limited atonement by trying to prove that Calvin himself didn't adhere to it. I am currently reading through the aforementioned book "Whosoever Will" and am making extensive notes to possibly write a review, or rather refutation, from. I own most of the books quoted from, including Calvin's Commentaries. I suppose David Allen, the coauthor of the book, really doesn't expect people to actually look up the cited quotes and read them within their context. I expect this from the sinful world, not from a seminary professor who definitely knows better.

I will let Calvin, and his belief in limited atonement, defend himself against one of the "Big 3" Arminian verses, 1 John 2:2---

"And not for ours only". He added this for the sake of amplifying, in order that the faithful might be assured that the expiation made by Christ, extends to all who by faith embrace the gospel.
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 1 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.

I would strongly suggest that people actually LOOK UP the verses cited, read them within their context, and then, and only then, look up the commentators' comments on the passage. Basic hermeneutics, please!

As for Owen's argument, he (Owen) was spot on. Please look up both the Hebrew and the Greek meanings for atonement/propitiation/ransom. You will readily find that the purchase of sinners not only removed their sin and set them free, but simultaneously appeased the Father's wrath against them. Ask yourself this: if in Christ's atonement, God's wrath was appeased (propitiation) and sinners were set free from their sin (expiation), does it not sound a little foolish to think that Christ's atonement as remedially described above, was for millions, possibly billions, of people who are suffering under God's wrath in hell right now? Were they redeemed? Were they "set free" from their sin?

Just a thought...

[peter]

John,

First, if you're going to engage Dr. Allen, you will do so respectfully. I find your insinuation Dr. Allen "doesn't expect people to actually look up the cited quotes and read them within their context" to be both insulting and derogatory.

Second, by all means, please make notes and do a "review" of Dr. Allen's chapter in Whosoever Will. Let me know when you publish it. I promise I will link to it.

Third, the only thing you did by quoting Calvin's commentary on 1 John 2:2 is, at best, pit Calvin against Calvin. In other words, you make Calvin ambiguous at best which is precisely why scholars question his commitment to limited atonement.

Fourth, it's not just David Allen who questions Calvin's allegiance to limited atonement. Rather there exists an impressive list of eminent scholar-theologians representing a broad range of Christian belief who log their reservations that Calvin embraced what came to be known post-Dort as Limited Atonement.

Fifth, I'd like to hear not how Dr. Allen skewed Calvin's words from the seven examples I cited above. Rather, I'd like you to point out how I skewed Calvin's words by ignoring and/or abusing the context. The examples I offered I got from my own set of commentaries. So, please, be my guest. Demonstrate how I skewed Calvin's context.

I look forward to your correction.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Pastor Duke]

From your bio, "Thus, I simply refuse to allow non-essentials to drive me from my fellow believers. "By this, all will know you are my disciples", Jesus said, "if you have love for one another." You may consider revising this statement ;)

[John Wilson]

Peter,

David Allen, as does all people writing a book or chapter in a book, knows what he is writing, to who he is writing to, and what content either builds his case or hurts it. In his case, what is excluded from his quotes is what would be, if included, damaging to his case.
I make no apologies there.

As for the 1 John 2:2 comment by Calvin, "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", what part of that is ambiguous?

I really don't care as to what theologians question Calvin's view on limited atonement. He was a sinful man as are all men and wasn't infallible. I do, however, believe his views, within their respective contexts and within the entirety of his commentary on the subject of soteriology, give a Biblical picture of Christ's atonement.

I do find it somewhat telling that you offered no response to what the actual definitions in the original Hebrew and Greek words for propitiation, atonement, redemption, ransom, etc. actually mean. What does it mean to purchase someone? Set them free? Own them?Does this sound like people serving in hell to you? Owen was right. Make that the Bible was right. Check out John 17 and see if Christ was ambiguous as to who he was dying for.

Finally, lose the ellipsis! By including the context, Calvin speaks for himself and limited atonement. Surely you must know that in Christ's time, the term world, as applying to people, was most often used to include those peoples other than the Jews. The Jews thought that they were the only ones to have the promise. (Acts 11:18) Paul shot that down in Romans 9.

For each of your 7 cited texts, I have copied the "unellipsis" version of Calvin's comments. I will let them speak for themselves. You may have the last word as I am not going to go back and forth on this. I have already broken my "vow" to not be on the computer tonight and if you want to hear any more about it from me, you can go to my friend Mark and I's website (dogandponyradio.com) and listen to our past radio show archives. Actuallmy, we will be talking about limited atonement tomorrow night.

Here is Calvin:

1. Matthew 26:28 Which is shed for many. By the word many he means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race; for he contrasts many with one; as if he had said, that he will not be the Redeemer of one man only, but will die in order to deliver many from the condemnation of the curse. It must at the same time be observed, however, that by the words for you, as related by Luke--Christ directly addresses the disciples, and exhorts every believer to apply to his own advantage the shedding of blood Therefore, when we approach to the holy table, let us not only remember in general that the world has been redeemed by the blood of Christ, but let every one consider for himself that his own sins have been expiated.

2. John 1:29 Who taketh away the sin of the world. He uses the word sin in the singular number, for any kind of iniquity; as if he had said, that every kind of unrighteousness which alienates men from God is taken away by Christ. And when he says, the sin Of The World, he extends this favor indiscriminately to the whole human race; that the Jews might not think that he had been sent to them alone. But hence we infer that the whole world is involved in the same condemnation; and that as all men without exception are guilty of unrighteousness before God, they need to be reconciled to him. John the Baptist, therefore, by speaking generally of the sin of the world, intended to impress upon us the conviction of our own misery, and to exhort us to seek the remedy. Now our duty is, to embrace the benefit which is offered to all, that each of us may be convinced that there is nothing to hinder him from obtaining reconciliation in Christ, provided that he comes to him by the guidance of faith.

3. John 3:14-16 That whosoever believeth on him may not perish. It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.
Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all. For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith. Here, too, is displayed a wonderful effect of faith; for by it we receive Christ such as he is given to us by the Father -- that is, as having freed us from the condemnation of eternal death, and made us heirs of eternal life, because, by the sacrifice of his death, he has atoned for our sins, that nothing may prevent God from acknowledging us as his sons. Since, therefore, faith embraces Christ, with the efficacy of his death and the fruit of his resurrection, we need not wonder if by it we obtain likewise the life of Christ.

4. John 16:8-11 He will convince the world; that is, he will not remain shut up in you, but; his power will go forth from you to be displayed to the whole world. He therefore promises to them a Spirit, who will be the Judge of the world, and by whom their preaching will be so powerful and efficacious, that it will bring into subjection those who formerly indulged in unbounded licentiousness, and were restrained by no fear or reverence.
It ought to be observed, that in this passage Christ does not speak of secret revelations, but of the power of the Spirit, which appears in the outward doctrine of the Gospel, and in the voice of men. For how comes it that the voice proceeding from the mouth of a man 1 penetrates into the hearts, takes root there, and at length yields fruit, changing hearts of stone into hearts of flesh, and renewing men, but because the Spirit of Christ quickens it? Otherwise it would be a dead letter and a useless sound, as Paul says in that beautiful passage, in which he boasts of being a minister of the Spirit, (2 Corinthians 3:6,) because God wrought powerfully in his doctrine. The meaning therefore is, that, though the Spirit had been given to the apostles, they would be endued with a heavenly and Divine power, by which they would exercise jurisdiction over the whole world. Now, this is ascribed to the Spirit rather than to themselves, because they will have no power of their own, but will be only ministers and organs, and the Holy Spirit will be their director and governor. 2
Under the term world are, I think, included not only those who would be truly converted to Christ, but hypocrites and reprobates. For there are two ways in which the Spirit convinces men by the preaching of the Gospel. Some are moved in good earnest, so as to bow down willingly, and to assent willingly to the judgment by which they are condemned. Others, though they are convinced of guilt and cannot escape, yet do not sincerely yield, or submit themselves to the authority and jurisdiction of the Holy Spirit, but, on the contrary, being subdued they groan inwardly, and, being overwhelmed with confusion, still do not cease to cherish obstinacy within their hearts.
We now perceive in what manner the Spirit was to convince the world by the apostles. It was, because God revealed his judgment in the Gospel, by which their consciences were struck, and began to perceive their evils and the grace of God. for the verb ejle>gcein here signifies to convince or convict; and, for understanding this passage, not a little light will be obtained from the words of the Apostle Paul, when he says,
If all shall prophesy, and an unbeliever or unlearned man enter, he is convicted by all, he is judged by all, and thus shall the secrets of his heart be made manifest, (1 Corinthians 14:23.)
In that passage Paul speaks particularly of one kind of conviction, that is; when the Lord brings his elect to repentance by the Gospel; but this plainly shows in what manner the Spirit of God, by the sound of the human voice, constrains men, who formerly were not accustomed to his yoke, to acknowledge and submit to his authority

5. Romans 5:18 Therefore, etc. This is a defective sentence; it will be complete if the words condemnation and justification be read in the nominative case; as doubtless you must do in order to complete the sense. We have here the general conclusion from the preceding comparison; for, omitting the mention of the intervening explanation, he now completes the comparison, "As by the offense of one we were made (constitute) sinners; so the righteousness of Christ is efficacious to justify us. He does not say the righteousness -- dikaiosu>nhn, but the justification -- dikai>wma, 1 of Christ, in order to remind us that he was not as an individual just for himself, but that the righteousness with which he was endued reached farther, in order that, by conferring this gift, he might enrich the faithful. He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him. 2
These two words, which he had before used, judgment and grace, may be also introduced here in this form, "As it was through God's judgment that the sin of one issued in the condemnation of many, so grace will be efficacious to the justification of many." Justification of life is to be taken, in my judgment, for remission, which restores life to us, as though he called it life-giving. 3 For whence comes the hope of salvation, except that God is propitious to us; and we must be just, in order to be accepted. Then life proceeds from justification.

6. Galatians 5:12. Would that they were even cut off. His indignation proceeds still farther, and he prays for destruction on those impostors by whom the Galatians had been deceived. The word, "cut off," appears to be employed in allusion to the circumcision which they pressed. "They tear the church for the sake of circumcision: I wish they were entirely cut off." Chrysostom favors this opinion. But how can such an imprecation be reconciled with the mildness of an apostle, who ought to wish that all should be saved, and that not a single person should perish? So far as men are concerned, I admit the force of this argument; for it is the will of God that we should seek the salvation of all men without exception, as Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world. But devout minds are sometimes carried beyond the consideration of men, and led to fix their eye on the glory of God, and the kingdom of Christ. The glory of God, which is in itself more excellent than the salvation of men, ought to receive from us a higher degree of esteem and regard. Believers earnestly desirous that the glory of God should be promoted, forget men, and forget the world, and would rather choose that the whole world should perish, than that the smallest portion of the glory of God should be withdrawn.
Let us remember, however, that such a prayer as this proceeds from leaving men wholly out of view, and fixing our attention on God alone. Paul cannot be accused of cruelty, as if he were opposed to the law of love. Besides, if a single man or a few persons be brought into comparison, how immensely must the church preponderate! It is a cruel kind of mercy which prefers a single man to the whole church. "On one side, I see the flock of God in danger; on the other, I see a wolf "seeking," like Satan, "whom he may devour." (1 Peter 5:8.) Ought not my care of the church to swallow up all my thoughts, and lead me to desire that its salvation should be purchased by the destruction of the wolf? And yet I would not wish that a single individual should perish in this way; but my love of the church and my anxiety about her interests carry me away into a sort of ecstasy, so that I can think of nothing else." With such zeal as this, every true pastor of the church will burn. The Greek word translated "who trouble you," signifies to remove from a certain rank or station. By using the word kai<, even, he expresses more strongly his desire that the impostors should not merely be degraded, but entirely separated and cut off.

7. Colossians 1:14 In whom we have redemption. He now proceeds to set forth in order, that all parts of our salvation are contained in Christ, and that he alone ought to shine forth, and to be seen conspicuous above all creatures, inasmuch as he is the beginning and end of all things. In the first place, he says that we have redemption 10 and immediately explains it as meaning the remission of sins; for these two things agree together by apposition. 11For, unquestionably, when God remits our transgressions, he exempts us from condemnation to eternal death. This is our liberty, this our glorying in the face of death -- that our sins are not imputed to us. He says that this redemption was procured through the blood of Christ, for by the sacrifice of his death all the sins of the world have been expiated. Let us, therefore, bear in mind, that this is the sole price of reconciliation, and that all the trifling of Papists as to satisfactions is blasphemy.

Now, if Calvin can be proven beyond doubt, and I think not, that he held to universal atonement, so be it. He was a sinful man just as you and I are and not infallible. I do believe that Scripture, which is all that really matters, teaches that Christ's saving work on the cross was limited to the ones that the Father elected before the creation of the world. (Ephesians 1 and John 17 are pretty clear.)

Maybe I am an "Owenian" instead of a Calvinist...or is that just a synonym for Bible-believer!!

Soli deo gloria

John Wilson

[peter]

Dear Duke

If you have a contribution relevant to the thread, I'd be glad to post it. Otherwise, may the Lord bless you and keep you.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter]

John,

First, please keep your comments to a reasonable length.  You posted over 2600 words while my original post barely over 1,000 words. 

Second, your comments are embolden, and my response follows:

Peter, David Allen…knows what he is writing, to who he is writing to, and what content either builds his case or hurts it. Let’s hope so!

In his case, what is excluded from his quotes is what would be, if included, damaging to his case. I make no apologies there. John, your making bald assertions about what is in Whosoever Will is supposed to contribute exactly what to this thread which is not about Dr. Allen’s chapter in Whosoever Will?  I told you:  write your review of Allen’s chapter and I’ll be happy to link it. But don’t bring up again naked criticisms about something you don’t even cite a thin shred of evidence to demonstrate. Even more, you are blatantly charging Dr. Allen with intentional misrepresentation which I pointed out earlier is both insulting and derogatory. Do it again and don’t expect to log another comment here.  I hope I am clear this time   

As for the 1 John 2:2 comment by Calvin, "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", what part of that is ambiguous? The ambiguity I mentioned referred to Calvin’s language you cited from 1 John 2:2 and the language Calvin used elsewhere:

• “By the word many he means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race” (Mt 26:28)
• “And when he says, the sin Of The World, he extends this favor indiscriminately to the whole human race…” (John 1:29
• “…Under the term world are, I think, included not only those who would be truly converted to Christ, but hypocrites and reprobates” (John 16:8-11);  et al

Assuming Calvin to be very clear in 1 John 2:2 creates conflicting views about precisely what he meant in other passages like the above. And, be assured the ones I listed are only a sprinkling of the many others from Calvin which could be marshaled to demonstrate the point.

I really don't care as to what theologians question Calvin's view on limited atonement. He was a sinful man as are all men and wasn't infallible. Excuse me?  Why would you not care what scholarship has to say?  Surely you do not diss all scholarship as you did Dr. Allen, do you? John Owen was a great scholar-theologian. Do you care what he has to say? Even more, what if I replied to your citing Owen, "I really don't care what Owen has to say"? And such a response would be acceptable to you? Finally, your implication that Calvin was fallible helps us understand his view on atonement precisely in what way?

I do, however, believe his views, within their respective contexts and within the entirety of his commentary on the subject of soteriology, give a Biblical picture of Christ's atonement. The question at this juncture is not whether Calvin held a biblical understanding of atonement; rather whether he held some form of limited atonement.

I do find it somewhat telling that you offered no response to what the actual definitions in the original Hebrew and Greek words for propitiation, atonement, redemption, ransom, etc. actually mean. What does it mean to purchase someone? Set them free? Own them? Does this sound like people serving in hell to you? And why should it matter whether I cited actual definitions of the original biblical languages for anything I’ve written, John?  This post is definitively not about whether the biblical doctrine of atonement is limited or general; rather it raises the question whether Calvin held to what has come to be known as limited atonement. Hence, while your questions may have merit in some respects, unfortunately my answer to them cannot assist us in understanding whether John Calvin held to Limited Atonement

Owen was right. Argumentative.  Besides, Owen is not the subject here but Calvin.  For a post which perhaps lends itself to Owen, check this one out

Make that the Bible was right. Check out John 17 and see if Christ was ambiguous as to who he was dying for. Why should I check out John 17 to see if Jesus was ambiguous?  We’re not discussing whether Jesus was ambiguous but whether John Calvin was

Finally, lose the ellipsis! By including the context, Calvin speaks for himself and limited atonement. Bald assertion not to mention an empty one.  You’re wrongly assuming my use of ellipsis is an illegitimate one when ellipsis is a perfectly acceptable literary tool. Further, you appear to be implying I deliberately veiled Calvin’s real intent by cutting words out, the very same charge you leveled against Dr. Allen. Unless you’re willing to show that the words I left out of Calvin make him say something entirely different than what I have concluded, do not bring this back up again, John. And, I encourage anyone to check the quotes for themselves

Surely you must know that in Christ's time, the term world, as applying to people, was most often used to include those peoples other than the Jews. The Jews thought that they were the only ones to have the promise. (Acts 11:18) Paul shot that down in Romans 9. Whatever the term “world” meant in Jesus’ time is worthy for us to pursue, I fully concede. And understand: I’d love to pursue the subject on precisely what Paul “shot down” in Romans 9.  However, neither the biblical understanding of “world” is in dispute here nor is Paul’s letter to Rome. Rather, our query specifically raises the question whether Calvin held to strict Calvinism’s understanding of atonement. Thus far, you’ve marshaled nothing more than a denial he embraced general atonement. Unfortunately you offer not a single piece of evidence to aid you. Instead, you’ve not only dissed scholarship which could aid your cause tremendously, but you’ve also continued to talk about other things rather than whether John Calvin embraced limited atonement.

For each of your 7 cited texts, I have copied the "unellipsis" version of Calvin's comments. No need.  I gave links to the appropriate passages from Calvin’s commentaries in the OP (though I had to repair some of them). Why you felt you had to post them here remains curious. I challenge anyone to show how I skewed Calvin’s words by what I wrote in the OP. Indeed the challenge still goes to you, John, since you failed to offer a single example where I skewed Calvin’s words.

I will let them speak for themselves. You may have the last word as I am not going to go back and forth on this. I have already broken my "vow" to not be on the computer tonight and if you want to hear any more about it from me, you can go to my friend Mark and I's website (dogandponyradio.com) and listen to our past radio show archives. Actuallmy, we will be talking about limited atonement tomorrow night. First, allowing Calvin to “speak for himself” is precisely why many scholars doubt he embraced a robust, highly developed doctrine of limited atonement. Why?  Because his comments are ambiguous at best pertaining to exactly whose sins Christ’s death expiated. He says one thing then another. Even so, there exists an impressive amount of scholarship—many of whom are mainstream Calvinists themselves—who deny Calvin embraced limited atonement. And, whether or not such impresses you, John, is beside the point. As for “listening in” on your broadcast, I have to say, if you have no more evidence to offer than what you’ve given here, I surely cannot understand why you’d think I would need to listen.

Here is Calvin… Like I said, the links are given in the OP.  If people are concerned I skewed Calvin, they are free to follow the links I provide and check.  That’s why I gave the link after all.

Now, if Calvin can be proven beyond doubt, and I think not, that he held to universal atonement, so be it. He was a sinful man just as you and I are and not infallible. How interesting you quoted exceptionally long blocks of Calvin’s commentaries but not a single connection to how I allegedly skewed his meaning.  So, given Calvin’s context I’m supposed to have expunged, John, what does Calvin mean when he says on John 1:29, “he extends this favor indiscriminately to the whole human race…” ? Or, when Calvin affirms of John 3:16, ““…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…”? For him, at least in this passage, world is equated with the whole human race. How am I misreading Calvin’s words?  Or, again, contrary to your assertion Calvin was not ambiguous on 1 John 2:2, Calvin writes of John 16:8-11, ““…Under the term world are, I think, included not only those who would be truly converted to Christ, but hypocrites and reprobates”? As for your assertion that Calvin was fallible just as we are hardly makes sense to this conservation. While true, it offers nothing toward whether Calvin embraced limited atonement or not.

I do believe that Scripture, which is all that really matters, teaches that Christ's saving work on the cross was limited to the ones that the Father elected before the creation of the world. (Ephesians 1 and John 17 are pretty clear.) The question on this thread is not affected one iota by what view either you or I embrace, John.  The question concerns what view Calvin embraced. Thus far, I have to say, you’re only strengthening the view those of us hold who question whether Calvin embraced limited atonement. Aside from baldly suggesting a) I ripped Calvin from context (without showing how); and, b) Calvin was a sinner, you have offered not a single slither of reasonable evidence why we should not hold that Calvin did not embrace limited atonement. And, contrary to your assertion about both Ephesians 1 and John 17, it is hardly clear that one should read those passages through Calvinism’s anachronistic lens. But that is a conversation for another thread.

Maybe I am an "Owenian" instead of a Calvinist...Perhaps you are “Owenian.” However, this thread is not about John Owen but John Calvin. In your review of Dr. Allen’s chapter in Whosoever Will, you’ll have plenty of opportunity to dialog with his critique of John Owen’s view of the atonement, provided, of course, you can engage him rather than either dismiss him or insult him.

or is that just a synonym for Bible-believer!!  And, therein lies the problem, John. Unflinching Calvinists such as yourself—whether intentionally or unintentionally—insinuate those of us who hold another view of Christ’s atonement cannot, do not, or will not believe Scripture. For you it is not a matter of honest interpretative differences. Instead it is about biblical fidelity. Without reservation, John, know it’s particularly Calvinistic views such as you’ve expressed which prodded me to start this site in 2006. I shall continue.  

With that, I am…

Peter