Recently on the CARM boards, a thread was posted entitled, "Jesus Died For Judas Iscariot." In this piece, the following was asserted:
John Gill
"From Luke's account it appears most clearly, that Judas was not only at the passover, but at the Lord's supper, since this was said when both were over"
Also, John Calvin on Mark 14:24, which is part of the Lord's Supper, says this:
"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."
This does not mean that Judas was ever "born again", which John 13:10 says he was not; but that Jesus Christ did actually die for Judas, which is even confirmed in 2 Peter 2:1, which clearly says that those who are lost in hell, have been "bought" (same Greek word, ἀγοράζω, used for Jesus' blood shed for sinners, as in 1 Corinthians 6:20; 7:23; Revelation 5:9, 14:3-4, etc)
Granted, Calvin's quote is not the emphasis of the overall argument. I doubt the person posting the quote really cares what John Calvin believed. Rather, Calvin is being used in a polemical way to demonstrate to Calvinists that even their founder believed in an universal atonement (which would include Jesus atoning for the sins of Judas Iscariot).
Here then is the brief interaction I had with this person on Calvin's view:
Originally posted by Sola_Scriptura
Determining Calvin's view of the atonement can be tricky. It's not a clear-cut theological point in his writings, one way or the other. To my knowledge, Calvin did not enter into any significant controversies about the extent of the atonement. There are people who try to argue Calvin's view, limited or unlimited. All there is to work with are snippet statements peppered throughout his written corpus. I've seen the evidence for both sides. The statement you've utilized from Calvin simply does not prove the case that he held to an unlimited atonement.
The extent of the atonement became significantly more important in Reformed theology after Calvin’s death The Arminian controversy that erupted after Calvin did produce definite Reformed statements on the extent of the atonement.
JS
Originally posted by James Swan
"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."
Note the phrase that Calvin uses here, "all men without exception", whereas the "Calvinistic/Reformed" say, "all men without distinction".
On Colossians 1:14
"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 ******* as to satisfactions is blasphemy"
Nothing about any "limitations" here.
His comments on Mark 14:24 clearly show the extent of which Calvin held the blood of Jesus Christ was shed on the cross,
"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"
Only those who will insist in their theological bias, can conclude that John Calvin did not believe in Universal Redemption.
Originally posted by Sola_Scriptura
Then, in regard to Calvin’s comments on John 3:16: Calvin continues to use “us”- that is, those who embrace Christ by faith. When Calvin refers to “all,” here, he is not referring to the extent of the atonement. Calvin has just pointed out earlier that Christ was to be preached to “all” through the Gospel. All are invited to Christ, yet salvation has come to “us”- those given the gift of faith by God. In the snippet of Calvin you've posted, when Calvin says things that sound like Christ died for “all,” Calvin is saying that Christ is proclaimed to “all.” It is not a discussion on the extent of the atonement.
Originally posted by Sola_Scriptura
"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 and immediately explains it as meaning the remission of sins; for these two things agree together by apposition. For, 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 ******* as to satisfactions is blasphemy."
One does not find Calvin describing a hypothetical atonement for the entire world that is only put into effect by man’s free will. What Calvin describes is Christ’s death providing and actualizing redemption: the remission of sins, the remission of transgressions, exemption from condemnation to eternal death, and our sins not being imputed to us. How then is it possible to think that Calvin is saying this of every person who will ever live? If Calvin is implying here that every person who will ever live has had their sin imputed to Christ, then Calvin is proposing blatant universalism. Would it not be more fitting to ascribe a different usage of the word “world” above to Calvin?
Originally posted by Sola_Scriptura
It's more the sort of person like you with "theological bias." I'm willing to look at all the evidence, and grant the incongruities for all the positions put forth for Calvin's view. Perhaps you aren't aware of the debate about Calvin's view of the atonement? I would recommend a number of studies for the different positions if you want to catch up and thus have a meaningful dialog.
Though the main topic still rages on, this aspect of the conversation on Calvin's view appears to have stopped after my last comments above. I was expecting to bombarded with John Calvin snippet quotes, as is the usual tactic of propagandists. With this subject, usually those who argue Calvin's view was unlimited atonement resort to brief snippets from Calvin, while those who take the opposite view argue limited atonement is inferred from his overall theology. As I've stated above, this subject is complicated. There are cogent arguments from both sides. Unfortunately, there was not any persuading or cogent evidence presented in the CARM discussion that Calvin held to universal, unlimited atonement.
Posts
