ALTAR CALLS!!

Some more right here!!

The answer to the question is simply this, ALTAR CALLS NOT NECESSARY!!! NOT FOUND IN SCRIPTURE!!

WON, LES!!

A popular book...

This is a bit outdated, however relevant because this book (The Shack) continues to be a "Best-Seller" and by all means false in its presentation of the TRINITY! Therefore heretical in nature and intent.

My Pastor Bob Gianserra wrote a brief article in his BLOG concerning this book, and there is a video that further explains the falicy of this so called "fictional" book.

This book has infiltrated the Church BIG TIME, I cant believe how many "Christians" that I know own and love this book, but for the sake of a lack of knowledge many are being deceived!! I cannot stress the importance of studying, SCRIPTURE itself urges us to rightly divide the WORD of TRUTH!

2 Timothy 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved,That is, one approved after being tested a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

But hey, supposedly I'm the one that's wrong and the majority is right, hence the idea that the majority can't be wrong, right? Sorry to burst bubbles but, that statement is truly wrong, remember narrow is the path to eternal salvation and broad is the road to destruction!

Matthew 7:13 “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy is the way that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

We love to read many and many a books concerning "spiritual matters" but we hate to consider whether they are truly in line with Scripture, and the moment we point out errors we, excuse me in my case, me, I am being "judgmental" just because I compare and test everything to see if its in line, therefore I'm judgmental and critical, you know what I rather be safe then sorry. So when it comes to false teachers, preachers and ____________ (fill in the blank) I pass cause God has given us the ability to rationalize and to rightly divide His WORD!! So Mr. Bentley, Mr. Joyner, Mr. Hinn, Mr. Jakes, Mr. Pearson, Mrs. King, Mr. Jones later for ya, I pray that my Lord will have mercy on your soul, but as for me, I pass on ALL your heresy ya aint got nothing for me and my house!

So here's the link for my Pastor's BLOG!

C'Ya!

Emcee Battle

This is one of the hottest battles I have eva seen!



Won, Ya!

A day in the life of a Martyr...

Shai Linne has this awesome album called Storiez, its a project comprised of songs that depict stories, each song is deeply profound, and of course every song strives to Glorify our Maker Jesus Christ, one of my favorite verses on the album is on this song called "Martyrs" Im going to post the lyrics to JSon's verse (you can also listen to the song on my Player on the right, its the first song), here it goes, enjoy:

Martyrs (off Shai Linne's album "Storiez"
written by j. watson, c. njoroge, b. davis, s. linne, m. stokes

The Time: 20th Century

The Place: China
The Martyr: A young girl


(Json)


We would gather so Pastor could season us Christians

We were pleased just to hear the reading of Scripture

Because here in Asia, we can’t worship like the States

Because servants of grace might be murdered for their faith

So we give Christ the praises secretly, we ain’t treated equally

Even on today our bible study’s held illegally

As Pastor opened to read from the first sentence

Communist soldiers kicked the door straight off the hinges

I knew this could happen for accepting His precious gift

They threaten to kill us with guns clutched within their fist

I’m shaken and scared even though Jesus is my everything

I don’t know if I’m prepared to die at the age of seventeen

The leading official turned to my pastor and looked

Put a gun to his face and told him “Hand over the book!”

He reluctantly handed over the text that he so adored

They laughed as he grabbed it and it was smashed to the floor

I was truly grieved as I looked in his eyes

He said, “Any of you can leave if you spit on this book of lies!”

A man walked up, cried as he fell to the floor

“Father forgive me”- “Leave! Now you can go!”

I trembled with fear my mind started to think about death

Hair leaking with sweat I thought my heart would beat through my chest

A woman that walked up next spit on the Bible and left

The official shot in the air of the air continued yelling out threats

I was tempted to do it- I just wanted to leave

The moment I thought this, I felt overwhelmingly grieved

I gritted my teeth, tears began to stream down my face

I needed some faith I just started to think on His grace

In my head I said “forget it” as I walked toward the text

Kneeled to the floor, wiped the spit off the Bible with my dress

To live is Christ, to die is gain ain’t a popular song

I said, “Father forgive them" as I was shot in the dome!


If you have a hard time interpreting the lyrics, just ask I will decrypt it for you, lol!!

C'Ya

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!!

I gotta say that its been a good start so far, my Pastor preached Fire last year, and he's still fanning the flames!! Man New Years Day Sermon was just amazing entitled "Consider your Ways" and last Sundays sermon was in continuation of the Ephesians Expository Series, that was entitled "Dead in Trespasses and Sin" Im posting them directly on my Blog so make sure you peep them, remember ***these are serious! This aint child's play, so if you aint serious about HIM, dont even bother!! And if you want to get serious just Listen!!

"Dead in Trespasses and Sin"


"Consider Your Ways"


I hope these bless and challenge you to step your game up!!

Sola Dei Gloria

"All men alike stand condemned, not by alien codes of ethics, but by their own, and all men therefore are conscious of guilt." - C. S. Lewis

"Perseverance of the Saints - is it Biblical?" WEEK 5 DAY 1

Week 5, Day 1

Ya gotta listen to this past Lord's Day Sermon, it is Bread for Days! I thank God for Pastor Bob Gianserra, keep doing what you doing Bruh! Don't comprimise, keep preaching the TRUTH, keep feeding us, and MOST IMPORTANTLY we are praying for YOU! The sermon is on Marriage will be posted in the upcoming days.(That is if it was recorded, LOL!!!) Jess listen to this! Put your seatbelt on! Coming in a day or two! Visit the New Blog Links in my recommended links!

And in keeping with this weeks theme, Perseverance of the Saints, I have added this rap song by Flame its called "Who can Pluck us" listen to it, its number 1 on my media player, its an awesome song, even if you're not into Christian Rap you gonna dig this song! I made it available for FREE download for this week only! So just click the arrow next to the tag in the media player, it will open in another page, go to file, then save page as, and save (these instructions are for firefox, dont know if it will work for IE) - ENJOY!>>>

And now for our scheduled programming...

"Perseverance of the Saints - is it Biblical?"

Answer: Perseverance of the Saints is the name that is used to summarize what the Bible teaches about the eternal security of the believer. It answers the question: Once a person is saved, can they lose their salvation? Perseverance of the saints is the P in the acronym TULIP, which is commonly used to enumerate what are known as the five points of Calvinism. Because the name perseverance of the saints can cause people to have the wrong idea about what is meant, some people prefer to use terms like: “Preservation of the Saints,” “Eternal Security,” or “Held by God.” Each of these terms reveals some aspect of what the Bible teaches about the security of the believer. However like any biblical doctrine what is important is not the name assigned to the doctrine but how accurately it summarizes what the Bible teaches about that subject. No matter which name you use to refer to this important doctrine a thorough study of the Bible will reveal that when it is properly understood it is an accurate description of what the Bible teaches.

The simplest explanation of this doctrine is the saying: “Once saved, always saved.” The Bible teaches that those who are born-again will continue trusting in Christ forever. God, by His own power through the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, keeps or preserves the believer forever. This wonderful truth is seen in Ephesians 1:13-14 where we see that believers are “sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchase possession, to the praise of His glory.” When we are born again, we receive the promised indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit that is God’s guarantee that He who began a good work in us will complete it (Philippians 1:6). In order for us to lose our salvation after receiving the promised Holy Spirit, God would have to break His promise or renege on His “guarantee,” which He cannot do. Therefore the believer is eternally secure because God is eternally faithful.

The understanding of this doctrine really comes from understanding the unique and special love that God has for His children. Romans 8:28-39 tells us that 1) no one can bring a charge against God’s elect; 2) nothing can separate the elect from the love of Christ; 3) God makes everything work together for the good of the elect; and 4) all whom God saves will be glorified. God loves His children (the elect) so much that nothing can separate them from Him. Of course this same truth is seen in many other passages of Scripture as well. In John 10:27-30 Jesus says: “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one." Again in John 6:37-47 we see Jesus stating that everyone that the Father gives to the Son will come to Him and He will raise all of them up at the last day.

Another evidence from Scripture of eternal security of a believer is found in verses like John 5:24 where Jesus says: “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.” Notice that eternal life is not something we get in the future but is something that we have once we believe. By its very nature eternal life must last forever or it could not be eternal. This passage says that if we believe the Gospel we have eternal life and will not come into judgment, therefore it can be said we are eternally secure.

There is really very little scriptural basis that can be used to argue against the eternal security of the believer. While there are a few verses that, if not considered in their context, might give the impression that one could “fall from grace” or lose their salvation, when these verses are carefully considered in context it is clear that is not the case. Many people know someone who at one time expressed faith in Christ and who might have appeared to be a genuine Christian who later departed from the faith and now wants to have nothing to do with Christ or His church. These people might even deny the very existence of God. For those that do not want to accept what the Bible says about the security of the believer these types of people are proof that the doctrine of eternal security cannot be right. However, the Bible indicates otherwise and it teaches that people such as those who profess Christ as Savior at one time only to later walk away and deny Christ, were never truly saved in the first place. For example 1 John 2:19 says, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out from us, in order that it might be made manifest that they all are not truly of us." The Bible is also clear that not everyone who professes to be a Christian truly is. Jesus Himself says that not everyone who says “Lord, Lord” will enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 7:21-22). Rather than proving we can lose our salvation, those people who profess Christ and fall away simply reinforces the importance of testing our salvation to make sure we are in the faith (2 Corinthians 13:5) and making our calling and election sure by continually examining our lives to make sure we are growing in godliness (2 Peter 1:10).

One of the misconceptions about the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is that it will lead to “carnal Christians” who believe that since they are eternally secure they can live whatever licentious lifestyle they wish and still be saved. But that is a misunderstanding of the doctrine and what the Bible teaches. A person who believes they can live any way they want because they have professed Christ is not demonstrating true saving faith (1 John 2:3-4). Our eternal security rests on the biblical teaching that those whom God justifies, He will also glorify (Romans 8:29-30). Those who are saved will indeed be conformed to the image of Christ through the process of sanctification (1 Corinthians 6:11). When a person is saved, the Holy Spirit breaks the bondage of sin and gives the believer a new heart and a desire to seek holiness. Therefore a true Christian will desire to be obedient to God and will be convicted by the Holy Spirit when they sin. They will never “live any way they want” because such behavior is impossible for someone who has been given a new nature (2 Corinthians 5:17).

Clearly the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints does accurately represent what the Bible teaches on this important subject. If someone is truly saved, they have been made alive by the Holy Spirit and have a new heart with new desires. There is no way that one that has been “born again” can later be unborn. Because of His unique love for His children, God will keep all of His children safe from harm and Jesus has promised that He would lose none of His sheep. The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints recognizes that true Christians will always persevere and are eternally secure because God keeps them that way. It is based on the fact that Jesus, the “author and perfecter of faith” (Hebrews 12:2), is able to completely save those that the Father has given Him (Hebrews 7:25) and to keep them saved through all eternity.

--End of Article--

Borrowed from HERE!

Irresistible Grace, or The Efficacious Call - Week 4 Day 3

Moving right along, this is day 3 of the 4th week of our Calvinism Series. After the 5th point, which is Perserverance of the Saints, I will be starting a series on the 5 Solas! I hope this has been helpful to you, as it has been for me! If you haven't checked the Sermon preached at Church last week, its the first track on my Media Player on the right! Go support Fireproof the Movie also! 11 more days till ESV STUDY BIBLE is released, all my friends (not exactly all, but most) are excited about this Bible, I know I am!

Irresistible Grace

In addition to the outward general call to salvation (which is made to everyone who hears the Gospel), the Holy Spirit extends to the elect a special inward call that inevitably brings them to salvation. The external call (which is made to all without distinction) can be -- and often is -- rejected; whereas the internal call (which is made only to the elect) cannot be rejected; it always results in conversion. By means of this special call, the Spirit irresistibly draws sinners to Christ. He is not limited in His work of applying salvation by man's will, nor is He dependent upon man's cooperation for success. The Spirit graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ. God's grace, therefore, is invincible; it never fails to result in the salvation of those to whom it is extended. This describes in a nutshell the doctrine of Irresistible Grace, or the Efficacious Call.

Scriptural Support:
Genesis 20:6, 35:5; Exodus 34:23; Deuteronomy 2:25, 30:6; Judges 14:1-4; 1 Kings 4:29; 1 Chronicles 22:12, 29:18; Ezra 1:1, 5, 6:22, 7:27; Nehemiah 1:11, 2:8, 12; Esther 2:17, 4:14, 6:1-4; Ezekiel 36:25-32; Psalm 33:10, 65:4, 139:16; Proverbs 21:1; Isaiah 44:28; Jeremiah 10:24; Haggai 1:14; Luke 24:16, 31, 45; John 6:37, 45, 10:3, 4, 27; Acts 11:18, 13:48, 16:14, 17:26; 1 Corinthians 3:5, 12:13, 15:10; 2 Corinthians 8:16; Galatians 2:8; Ephesians 2:1-6, 3:7; Philippians 2:13; Hebrews 13:20; James 4:13-15.

God's call to salvation is unlimited but His redemption is limited to those who believe. (Matthew 22:14) The Holy Spirit's conviction and drawing is what drags us to God. We do not come by our own will, which is utterly depraved and naturally hostile toward God. In The word "draw", used in John 6:44, is taken from the Greek word "helkuo", which means literally, "to drag." The very same word is used in Acts 16:19, where it is translated "dragged" in the NKJV, Amplified Version, NASB, and the NIV. When the Holy Spirit draws sinners, He literally drags them. Before salvation sinners are dead in trespasses and sins. A dead person is lifeless and not able to do anything. If you wish to move a dead person without any assistance, from one end of a place to another you must drag him. That is exactly what the Holy Spirit has to do to sinners to bring them to salvation. The Holy Spirit regenerates the unregenerate by turning a spiritually dead will that is in rebellion against God to one that is spiritually alive and willingly accepts Jesus as Savior and Lord.
Thus, salvation is all of God and not of man in any way, shape, or form. He deserves all the credit, praise, and glory.

Grace is unmerited favor. We obtain God's approval and favor by His grace through Jesus Christ, which is our unmerited pardon, reprieve, and total forgiveness. He has mercy on us. He forgives us even though we do not deserve it. God imputes the blood Christ in our stead.

On death row, who is in control of the sentence? The convict or the governor? The governor can issue the pardon, but the convict cannot pardon himself. The same is true of salvation. God can pardon us, but we cannot pardon ourselves. Even as a governor elects the convict to a pardon, God elects us to redemption. Ephesians 2:8-9 bolsters this point: "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast." Salvation is all of God and none of man.

At salvation God forgives our sins, but it's a continuous forgiveness. (1 John 1:5-2:1) Verse 9 in the Amplified Version says, "If we [freely] admit that we have sinned and confess our sins, He is faithful and just [true to His own nature and promises] and will forgive our sins (dismiss our lawlessness) and continuously cleanse us from all unrighteousness -- everything not in conformity to His will in purpose, thought, and action." Even after we are saved we sometimes will slip into sin, but we cannot remain there. God will continually forgive us when we confess and repent. We do not lose our salvation, but we do lose the joy of our salvation and fall out of fellowship with God when we sin. Even as grace is irresistible in salvation, grace is irresistible after salvation. God will drag us back to Himself when we stray. He will not allow us to stay in sin and enjoy it. He will chastise us. (Proverbs 3:11-12; Job 5:17; Hebrews 12:5-8, 12) God will chasten us and not allow us to remain in sin. His grace in forgiving our sins after salvation is just as irresistible.

In John 6:44 Jesus said, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day." Clearly those who do come, come because they have been enabled to do so. Furthermore, Jesus continues in this verse to affirm that, He "will raise him up on the last day." There is no room in this passage to allow for the possibility that all who are enabled will make a decision to refuse the offer. Jesus has made that clear with His pronouncement in the second half of this verse. Moreover, to suggest that at this point those who are enabled to come can decide not to, is to destroy the natural reading of this verse. No, all those who come, are indeed only those who have been enabled to do so. And all those who are enabled to do so, are saved. That is grace with power to save; grace that is irresistible!

The Apostle John speaks of those for whom some would make the claim were drawn and yet refused this offer of grace. He says of them in 1 John 2:19, "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us." As this passage indicates, one can appear to be a Christian, to be "of us," and not actually be as he seems. What is the one thing we learn from this passage? It is that genuinely born again people, drawn to Christ by the Father, never fall away. They remain. But those who refuse God's grace by turning from Him, no matter how authentic they may have appeared, prove that they were never truly born again to begin with.

--End of Article--

This article borrowed from HERE!

What is Irresistible Grace? Week 4 Day 2

I just added the sermon from last Sunday, if you didnt get to it yesterday, go listen to it now, its the first track on my Media Player on the right. I also added some Lecrae tracks, his album "REBEL" dropped this past Tuesday, and I gotta say that its definitely FIRE!! Cop it HERE!!

Continuing with our series on the 5 pts of Calvin or TULIP, this week we started the "I" which stand for:

Irresistible Grace by John Piper

The doctrine of irresistible grace does not mean that every influence of the Holy Spirit cannot be resisted. It means that the Holy Spirit can overcome all resistance and make his influence irresistible.

In Acts 7:51 Stephen says to the Jewish leaders, "You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit as your fathers did." And Paul speaks of grieving and quenching the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 4:30; 1 Thessalonians 5:19). God gives many entreaties and promptings which are resisted. In fact the whole history of Israel in the Old Testament is one protracted story of resistance, as the parable of the wicked tenants shows (Matthew 21:33-43; cf. Romans 10:21).

The doctrine of irresistible grace means that God is sovereign and can overcome all resistance when he wills. "He does according to his will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand!" (Daniel 4:35). "Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases" (Psalm 115:3). When God undertakes to fulfill his sovereign purpose, no one can successfully resist him.

This is what Paul taught in Romans 9:14-18, which caused his opponent to say, "Why then does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" To which Paul answers: "Who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me thus?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use?" (Romans 9:20f).

More specifically irresistible grace refers to the sovereign work of God to overcome the rebellion of our heart and bring us to faith in Christ so that we can be saved. If our doctrine of total depravity is true, there can be no salvation without the reality of irresistible grace. If we are dead in our sins, totally unable to submit to God, then we will never believe in Christ unless God overcomes our rebellion.

Someone may say, "Yes, the Holy Spirit must draw us to God, but we can use our freedom to resist or accept that drawing." Our answer is: except for the continual exertion of saving grace, we will always use our freedom to resist God. That is what it means to be "unable to submit to God." If a person becomes humble enough to submit to God it is because God has given that person a new, humble nature. If a person remains too hard hearted and proud to submit to God, it is because that person has not been given such a willing spirit. But to see this most persuasively we should look at the Scriptures.

In John 6:44 Jesus says, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him." This drawing is the sovereign work of grace without which no one can be saved from their rebellion against God. Again some say, "He draws all men, not just some." But this simply evades the clear implication of the context that the Father's "drawing" is why some believe and not others.

Specifically, John 6:64-65 says, "'But there are some of you that do not believe.' For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that should betray him. And he said, 'This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.'"

Notice two things.

First, notice that coming to Jesus is called a gift. It is not just an opportunity. Coming to Jesus is "given" to some and not to others.

Second, notice that the reason Jesus says this, is to explain why "there are some who do not believe." We could paraphrase it like this: Jesus knew from the beginning that Judas would not believe on him in spite of all the teaching and invitations he received. And because he knew this, he explains it with the words, No one comes to me unless it is given to him by my Father. Judas was not given to Jesus. There were many influences on his life for good. But the decisive, irresistible gift of grace was not given.

2 Timothy 2:24-25 says, "The Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to every one, an apt teacher, forbearing, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth."

Here, as in John 6:65 repentance is called a gift of God. Notice, he is not saying merely that salvation is a gift of God. He is saying that the prerequisites of salvation are also a gift. When a person hears a preacher call for repentance he can resist that call. But if God gives him repentance he cannot resist because the gift is the removal of resistance. Not being willing to repent is the same as resisting the Holy Spirit. So if God gives repentance it is the same as taking away the resistance. This is why we call this work of God "irresistible grace".

NOTE: It should be obvious from this that irresistible grace never implies that God forces us to believe against our will. That would even be a contradiction in terms. On the contrary, irresistible grace is compatible with preaching and witnessing that tries to persuade people to do what is reasonable and what will accord with their best interests.

1 Corinthians 1:23-24 says, "We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jew and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." Notice the two kinds of "calls" implied in this text.

First, the preaching of Paul goes out to all, both Jews and Greeks. This is the general call of the gospel. It offers salvation to all who will believe on the crucified Christ. But by and large it falls on unreceptive ears and is called foolishness.

But then, secondly, Paul refers to another kind of call. He says that among those who hear there are some who are "called" in such a way that they no longer regard the cross as foolishness but as the wisdom and power of God. What else can this call be but the irresistible call of God out of darkness into the light of God? If ALL who are called in this sense regard the cross as the power of God, then something in the call must effect the faith. This is irresistible grace.

It is further explained in 2 Corinthians 4:4-6, "The god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God...It is the God who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness,' who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ."

Since men are blinded to the worth of Christ, a miracle is needed in order for them to come to see and believe. Paul compares this miracle with the first day of creation when God said, "Let there be light." It is in fact a new creation, or a new birth. This is what is meant by the effectual call in 1 Corinthians 1:24.

Those who are called have their eyes opened by the sovereign creative power of God so that they no longer see the cross as foolishness but as the power and the wisdom of God. The effectual call is the miracle of having our blindness removed. This is irresistible grace.

Another example of it is in Acts 16:14, where Lydia is listening to the preaching of Paul. Luke says, "The Lord opened her heart to give heed to what was said by Paul." Unless God opens our hearts, we will not heed the message of the gospel. This heart-opening is what we mean by irresistible grace.

Another way to describe it is "new birth" or being born again. We believe that new birth is a miraculous creation of God that enables a formerly "dead" person to receive Christ and so be saved. We do not think that faith precedes and causes new birth. Faith is the evidence that God has begotten us anew. "Every one who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God" (1 John 5:1).

When John says that God gives the right to become the children of God to all who receive Christ (John 1:12), he goes on to say that those who do receive Christ "were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." In other words, it is necessary to receive Christ in order to become a child of God, but the birth that brings one into the family of God is not possible by the will of man.

Man is dead in trespasses and sins. He cannot make himself new, or create new life in himself. He must be born of God. Then, with the new nature of God, he immediately receives Christ. The two acts (regeneration and faith) are so closely connected that in experience we cannot distinguish them. God begets us anew and the first glimmer of life in the new-born child is faith. Thus new birth is the effect of irresistible grace, because it is an act of sovereign creation—"not of the will of man but of God."

--End of Article--

This was borrowed from John Piper, more from Piper go here!!

C'Ya!

"Irresistible Grace - is it Biblical?" Week 4 day 1

Im starting the series late this week, I got caught up with a bunch of stuff!! Anyhow, it's been a busy week so far, but GOD is still SOVEREIGN!

Im also posting the sermon from this week, Entitled "The Curse of Disobedience" Preached by Robert Gianserra, it was awesome! >>>>>


"Irresistible Grace - is it Biblical?"

Irresistible Grace is a phrase that is used to summarize what the Bible teaches about the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit in the salvation of sinners. It is represented by the “I” in the acronym TULIP that is commonly used to enumerate what are known as the five points of Calvinism or the Doctrines of Grace. The doctrine is also known as “Effectual Calling,” “Efficacious Grace,” “Efficacious Call of the Spirit,” and “Transformed by the Holy Spirit.” Each of these terms reveals some aspect of what the Bible teaches about the doctrine of irresistible grace. However what is important is not the name assigned to the doctrine but how accurately the doctrine summarizes what the Bible teaches about the nature and purpose of the work of the Holy Spirit in the salvation of sinful, spiritually dead men. No matter which name you use to refer to the doctrine of irresistible grace a through study of the Bible will reveal that when properly understood it is an accurate description of what the Bible teaches on this important subject.

Simply put, the doctrine of irresistible grace refers to the biblical truth that whatever God decrees to happen will inevitably come to pass, even in the salvation of individuals. The Holy Spirit will work in the lives of the elect so that they inevitably will come to faith in Christ. The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit never fails to bring to salvation those sinners whom He personally calls to Christ (John 6:37-40). At the heart of this doctrine is the answer to the question: Why does one person believe the Gospel and another does not? Is it because one is smarter, has better reasoning capabilities, or possesses some other characteristic that allows them to realize the importance of the Gospel message? Or is it because God does something unique in the lives of those that He saves? If it is because of what the person who believes does or is, then in a sense they are responsible for their salvation and they have a reason to boast. However, if the difference is solely that God does something unique in the hearts and lives of those who believe in Him and are saved, then there is no ground for boasting and salvation is truly a gift of grace. Of course the biblical answer to these questions is that the Holy Spirit does do something unique in the hearts of those who are saved. The Bible tells us that God saves people “according to His mercy…through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5). In other words those who believe the Gospel and are saved do so because they have been transformed by the Holy Spirit.

The doctrine of irresistible grace recognizes that the Bible describes natural man as “dead in his trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1; Ephesians 2:5; Colossians 2:13) and because man is spiritually dead he must first be made alive or regenerated in order to understand and respond to the Gospel message. A good illustration of this is seen in Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. In John 11:43 it is recorded that Jesus told Lazarus to “come forth” and that Lazarus came forth out of the tomb. What had to happen before Lazarus—who had been dead for several days—would be able to respond to Jesus’ command? He had to be made alive because a dead man cannot hear or respond. The same is true spiritually. If we are dead in our sins, as the Bible clearly teaches, then before we can respond to the Gospel message and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ we must first be made alive. As Jesus told Nicodemus in John 3:3, you must be “born again to see the kingdom of God.” John 1:12-13 tells us that being born again is not the result of something we do—“the will of man”—but is a sovereign act of God. Just as Lazarus could not bring himself back to life or respond to Jesus’ command without being brought back to life, neither can sinful man. Ephesians 2:1-10 makes it very clear that while we are still dead in our trespasses and sin God makes us alive. The Bible is very clear that the act of being born again or regenerated is a sovereign act of God. It is something He does which enables us to believe the Gospel message, not something that comes as a result of our belief.

The reason this doctrine is called “irresistible” grace is because it always results in the intended outcome, the salvation of the person it is given to. It is important to realize that the act of being regenerated or “born again” cannot be separated from the act of believing the Gospel. Ephesians 2:1-10 makes this clear. There is a clear connection between the act of being made alive by God (Ephesians 2:1,5) and the result of being saved by grace. (Ephesians 2:5,8). This is because everything pertaining to salvation, including the faith to believe, is an act of God’s grace. The reason God’s grace is irresistible and efficacious (always bringing forth the desired result) is because God “has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into” His kingdom (Colossians 1:13). Or as Psalm 3:8 puts it, “Salvation belongs to the Lord.”

To understand the doctrine of “Irresistible grace,” it is important to recognize that this is a special grace given only to those God has chosen for salvation (His elect) and is different from what is known as “common grace” which God bestows on both believer and the unbeliever. While there are many aspects of common grace, including life and all that is necessary to sustain it, common grace is what is often referred to as the “outward call of God.” This is God’s revelation of Himself given to all men through the light of creation and their consciences. It also includes the general call of the Gospel that goes out anytime the Gospel message is preached. This call can be resisted and rejected by those that receive it. (Matthew 22:14; Romans 1:18-32). However, God also gives an “inward call” which always results in salvation. This is the call of God that Jesus spoke of in John 6:37-47. The certainty of this inward call is seen in John 6:37: “All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.” John 6:44 confirms this: “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Other verses where irresistible grace can be seen include 2 Corinthians 4:1-6, Acts 13:48; Acts 16:14 and Romans 8:30. In 2 Corinthians 4:1-6, after explaining why some people do not believe the Gospel (it is veiled to them and their minds have been blinded towards it) Paul then writes, “For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Corinthians 4:6). The God who said “Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3) is the same God who gives the light of salvation to those He chooses, and the result is just as sure. The same truth is seen in a different way in Acts 13:48. Here it is said that “as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.” God saves those He chooses to save; therefore His saving grace is always effective or efficacious. In Acts 16:14 we have another example of God’s irresistible grace in action. The Lord opened the heart of Lydia “to respond the things spoken of by Paul.” Finally you have what is called the “golden chain of redemption” in Romans 8:29-30. Here we see that everyone God calls to salvation (the inward call) will be saved (justified).

A common misconception about the doctrine of irresistible grace is that it implies men are forced to accept Christ and men are dragged kicking and screaming into heaven. Of course neither of these are accurate descriptions of the doctrine of irresistible grace as revealed in the Bible. In fact the heart of irresistible grace is the transforming power of the Holy Spirit whereby He takes a man dead in his trespasses and sins and gives him spiritual life so that he can recognize the unsurpassing value of God’s offer of salvation. Then having been set free from the bondage of sin, that man willingly comes to Christ.

Another misconception concerning this doctrine is that it teaches the Holy Spirit cannot be resisted at all. Yet again that is not what the doctrine teaches because that is not what the Bible teaches. God’s grace can be resisted and the Holy Spirit’s influence can be resisted even by one of the elect. However what the doctrine does correctly recognize is that the Holy Spirit can overcome all such resistance and that He will draw the elect with an irresistible grace that makes them want to come to God and helps them to understand the Gospel so they can and will believe it.

The doctrine of irresistible grace simply recognizes that the Bible teaches God is sovereign and can overcome all resistance when He wills to. What God decrees or determines will come to pass always does. This truth is seen throughout Scripture. In Daniel 4:35 we see that “He does according to His will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay His hand!” Psalm 115:3 declares, “Our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases.” God’s grace in salvation is irresistible because when God sets out to fulfill His sovereign purpose, no person or thing can successfully resist Him.

The doctrine of irresistible grace accurately summarizes what the Bible teaches about the nature of saving faith as well as what must happen to overcome man’s depraved nature. Since natural man is dead in his trespasses and sins, it stands to reason that he must be regenerated before he can respond to the outward call of the Gospel. Until that happens man will resist the gospel message and the grace of God; however, once he has been “born again” and has a heart that is now inclined toward God, the grace of God will irresistibly draw Him to put his faith in Christ and be saved. These two acts (regeneration and faith) cannot be separated from one another. They are so closely connected that we often cannot distinguish between them.

--End of Article--

Borrowed from HERE!

C'ya Tomorrow!

Particular Redemption

Last entry on Particular Redemption or Limited Atonement!

Particular Redemption

'Did Christ die for the elect only, or for all men?' The answer has been much prejudiced by ambiguous terms, such as particular atonement, limited atonement; or general atonement, unlimited atonement, indefinite atonement. What do they mean by atonement? The word (at-one-ment) is used but once in the New Testament (Rom. v. 11), and there it means expressly and exactly reconciliation. This is proved thus: the same Greek word in the next verse, carrying the very same meaning, is translated reconciliation. Now, people continually mix two ideas when they say atonement: One is, that of the expiation for guilt provided in Christ's sacrifice. The other is, the individual reconciliation of a believer with his God, grounded on that sacrifice made by Christ once for all, but actually effectuated only when the sinner believes and by faith. The last is the true meaning of atonement, and in that sense every atonement (at-one-ment). Reconciliation, must be individual, particular, and limited to this sinner who now believes. There have already been just as many atonements as there are true believers in heaven and earth, each one individual.

But sacrifice, expiation, is one--the single, glorious, indivisible act of the divine Redeemer, infinite and inexhaustible in merit. Had there been but one sinner, Seth, elected of God, this whole divine sacrifice would have been needed to expiate his guilt. Had every sinner of Adam's race been elected, the same one sacrifice would be sufficient for all. We must absolutely get rid of the mistake that expiation is an aggregate of gifts to be divided and distributed out, one piece to each receiver, like pieces of money out of a bag to a multitude of paupers. Were the crowd of paupers greater, the bottom of the bag would be reached before every pauper got his alms, and more money would have to be provided. I repeat, this notion is utterly false as applied to Christ's expiation, because it is a divine act. It is indivisible, inexhaustible, sufficient in itself to cover the guilt of all the sins that will ever be committed on earth. This is the blessed sense in which the Apostle John says (1st Epistle ii. 2): 'Christ is the propitiation (the same word as expiation) for the sins of the whole world.'

But the question will be pressed, 'Is Christ's sacrifice limited by the purpose and design of the Trinity'? The best answer for Presbyterians to make is this: In the purpose and design of the Godhead, Christ's sacrifice was intended to effect just the results, and all the results, which would be found flowing from it in the history of redemption. I say this is exactly the answer for us Presbyterians to make, because we believe in God's universal predestination as certain and efficacious; so that the whole final outcome of his plan must be the exact interpretation of what his plan was at first. And this statement the Arminian also is bound to adopt, unless he means to charge God with ignorance, weakness, or fickleness. Search and see.

Well, then, the realized results of Christ's sacrifice are not one, but many and various:

1. It makes a display of God's general benevolence and pity towards all lost sinners,' to the glory of his infinite grace. For, blessed be his name, he says, 'I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth.'



2. Christ's sacrifice has certainly purchased for the whole human race a merciful postponement of the doom incurred by our sins, including all the temporal blessings of our earthly life, all the gospel restraints upon human depravity, and the sincere offer of heaven to all. For, but for Christ, man's doom would have followed instantly after his sin, as that of the fallen angels did.



3. Christ's sacrifice, wilfully rejected by men, sets the stubbornness, wickedness and guilt of their nature in a much stronger light, to the glory of God's final justice.



4. Christ's sacrifice has purchased and provided for the effectual calling of the elect, with all the graces which insure their faith, repentance, justification, perseverance, and glorification. Now, since the sacrifice actually results in all these different consequences, they are all included in God's design. This view satisfies all those texts quoted against us.

But we cannot admit that Christ died as fully and in the same sense for Judas as he did for Saul of Tarsus. Here we are bound to assert that, while the expiation is infinite, redemption is particular. The irrefragable grounds on which we prove that the redemption is particular are these: From the doctrines of unconditional election, and the covenant of grace. (The argument is one, for the covenant of grace is but one aspect of election.) The Scriptures tell us that those who are to be saved in Christ are a number definitely elected and given to him from eternity to be Redeemed by his mediation. How can anything be plainer from this than that there was a purpose in God's expiation, as to them, other than that it was as to the rest of mankind? See Scriptures. The immutability of God's purposes. (Isa. xlvi. 10; 2 Tim. ii. 19.) If God ever intended to save any soul in Christ (and he has a definite intention to save or not to save towards souls), that soul will certainly be saved. (John x. 27, 28; vi. 37-40�) Hence, all whom God ever intended to save in Christ will be saved. But some souls will never be saved; therefore some souls God never intended to be saved by Christ's atonement. The strength of this argument can scarcely be overrated. Here it is seen that a limit as to the intention of the expiation must he asserted to rescue God's power, purpose, and wisdom. The same fact is proved by this, that Christ's intercession is limited (See John xvii. 9, 20). We know that Christ's intercession is always prevalent. (Rom. viii. 34; Jn xi. 42.) If he interceded for all, all would be saved. But all will not be saved. Hence, there are some for whom he does not plead the merit of his expiation. But he is the 'same yesterday and to-day and forever.' Hence, there were some for whom, when he made expiation, he did not intend to plead it. Some sinners (i. e., elect) receive from God gifts of conviction, regeneration, faith, persuading and enabling them to embrace Christ, and thus make his expiation effectual to themselves, while other sinners do not. But these graces are a part of the purchased redemption, and bestowed through Christ. Hence his redemption was intended to effect some as it did not others. (See above.)

Experience proves the same. A large part of the human race were already in hell before the expiation was made. Another large part never hear of it. But 'faith cometh by hearing' (Rom. x.), and faith is the condition of its application. Since their condition is determined intentionally by God's providence, it could not be his intention that the expiation should avail for them equally with those who hear and believe. This view is destructive, particularly of the Arminian scheme.

'Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.' But the greater includes the less, whence it follows. That if God the Father and Christ cherished for a given soul the definite electing love which was strong enough to pay the sacrifice of Calvary, it is not credible that this love would then refuse the less costly gifts of effectual calling and sustaining grace. This is the very argument of Rom. v. 10, and viii. 31-39. This inference would not be conclusive if drawn merely from the benevolence of God's nature, sometimes called in Scripture 'his love,' but in every case of his definite, electing love it is demonstrative.

Hence, it is absolutely impossible for us to retain the dogma that Christ in design died equally for all. We are compelled to hold that he died for Peter and Paul in some sense in which he did not for Judas. No consistent mind can hold the Calvinistic creed as to man's total depravity towards God, his inability of will, God's decree, God's immutable attributes of sovereignty and omnipotence over free agents, omniscience and wisdom, and stops short of this conclusion. So much every intelligent opponent admits, and in disputing particular redemption, to this extent at least, he always attacks these connected truths as falling along with the other.

In a word, Christ's work or the elect does not merely put them in a salvable state, but purchases for them a complete and assured salvation. To him who knows the depravity and bondage of his own heart, any lees redemption than this would bring no comfort.

--End of Article--

For more visit HERE!

Did John Calvin believe in Limited Atonement? This is a long one, but a must read!

John Calvin's view of Limited Atonement

Does Calvin believe in limited Atonement or not? Many say that Calvin did not believe it. Dr. Nicole proves them quite wrong, but not without careful efforts.

John Calvin’s View of the Extent of the Atonement
by Dr. Roger Nicole

This topic has received considerable attention in the recent past, perhaps in view of R. T. Kendall’s very controversial book Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649.¹ An effort is made here to summarize the debate and to provide a brief evaluation.

It is often stated—and with considerable propriety—that Calvin did not write an explicit treatment concerning the extent of the atonement, in fact did not deal with this precise issue in the terms to which Reformed theology has been accustomed. It must be owned, of course, that the question had received some attention before Calvin. Notably Gottschalk in the ninth century had given express support to definite atonement² and the scholastics had discussed the topic and advanced a partial resolution in asserting that Christ’s death was “sufficient for all men and efficient for the elect.”³ Calvin alludes to and endorses this distinction but views it as insufficient for a proper analysis of 1 John 2:2.⁴ Nevertheless a full discussion of the scope of the atonement is not found in Calvin’s writings, and the assessment of his position in this area has been varied.

Certain other Reformed theologians, contemporaries of Calvin or flourishing in the late sixteenth or the beginning of the seventeenth century, expressed a clear endorsement of definite atonement: e.g. Peter Martyr, H. Zanchius, T. Beza, J. Piscator, W. Ames, R. Abbot.⁵ As far as we know, they did not assert that they were conscious of differing with Calvin on this score, nor did Calvin take issue in writing with any of those who formulated the view during his life-time.

One of the earliest writers to claim that Calvin espoused universal atonement was Moyse Amyraut (1596–1664) who in his Eschantillon de la doctrine de Calvin touchant la predestination⁶ quoted certain passages from Calvin’s commentaries in support of his own position on universal atonement. Amyraut’s friend and supporter Jean Daillé (1594–1670) later published some 43 pages of excerpts from Calvin’s works which he deemed in line with universal grace.⁷ A number of these excerpts relate to the design of the atonement, but it is really amazing to observe how most of these quotations are lacking in cogency with respect to the precise status questionis. Some, indeed, appear actually counterproductive, especially if replaced in their original context.⁸ Amyraut’s opponents, notably Pierre DuMoulin (1568–1658),⁹ André Rivet (1573–1651),¹⁰ and Frederic Spanheim (1600–1649)¹¹ did not fail to respond with explanations of Calvin’s texts which showed them to be compatible with particularism. Furthermore they quoted other texts of Calvin, especially from his Traité de la predestination,¹² in which the design of the atonement and God’s elective purpose are seen as inextricably related.

In July 1861, Principal William Cunningham published in the British and Foreign Evangelical Review an article on “Calvin and Beza” in which he examined certain areas where it is claimed Beza differed from Calvin.¹³ One of these is the extent of the atonement, and Cunningham appears to be the first who referred to the following text of Calvin as reflecting a presumption of definite atonement. “I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ which was not crucified for them, and how they can drink the blood which was not shed to expiate their sins.”¹⁴

This passage, found in a treatise on the Lord’s Supper destined to refute the fiery Lutheran Tilemann Heshusius, is rendered stronger by the fact that Heshusius, in good Lutheran fashion, did believe in universal atonement and therefore would not find Calvin’s argument persuasive at this point. But Calvin was so strongly oriented here that he appears to have forgotten that Heshusius would not share his presuppositions!

William Cunningham’s article, as is usual with this author, is a very solid and searching study. In addition to discussing the important quotation of Calvin noted above, Cunningham reasoned that Calvin’s emphatic repudiation of a universal saving will and endorsement of election and reprobation as well as his particularistic interpretation of passages invariably appealed to by hypothetical universalists (1 Tim 2:4; 1 John 2:2) reflect a line of thought in which particular rather than universal redemption finds a fitting place.¹⁵

Under the title Christ in Our Place¹⁶ Paul van Buren published in 1957 a doctoral thesis submitted to the University of Basel in 1954. This deals with Calvin’s doctrine of the atonement as a whole, but it contains significant statements about Calvin’s view of the extent of the atonement. Van Buren emphasized Calvin’s endorsement of the substitutionary character of the priestly work of Christ. He quotes some passages of Calvin where a universal reference of Christ’s work is indicated, and yet, says van Buren, “We find Calvin holding back from the consequences of his own exegesis”¹⁷ in limiting the redemptive impact of Christ’s death to the elect in places where the Scripture used the word “all.” Thus the universalist van Buren acknowledges particularistic elements in Calvin and deals with them as if they were a failure to accept the logical implications of his premises. Van Buren lays great stress on Calvin’s affirmation of the universal call and of the penal substitutionary nature of atonement, but he views particular election and redemption as conflicting with Scripture and the remainder of Calvin’s theology. This, however, is reading Calvin with Barthian glasses and van Buren’s criticism of Calvin here is not very damaging, especially since at several points in the book Calvin’s thought is presented as involving a definiteness in Christ’s work centering on those of mankind who will actually be redeemed.¹⁸

In a very thought-provoking review of van Buren’s book,¹⁹ John Murray notes that Calvin does assert the propriety of a universal offer of salvation, but holds a “fast line of distinction between the elect and the reprobate,” and specifically reflects on the particular reference of the atonement in his comments on 1 John 2:2 and 1 Tim 2:4, 6. Furthermore, the close connection between the sacrifice of Christ and saving union with Christ militates in favor of definite atonement.

In 1969 Brian G. Armstrong in his very able work Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy,²⁰ expressed the view that Amyraut was a true representative of the original Calvinian thought and that his opponents (DuMoulin, Rivet, Spanheim, etc.) were the ones who by their scholastic method had deviated from the direction articulated by the Geneva Reformer. He quotes Calvin’s commentaries on John 3:16; Rom 5:10; Ezek 18:23; 2 Pet 3:9 and his sermons on Isaiah 53, 1 Tim 2:3–5, and 2 Tim 2:19, as well as the passage from the Treatise on Predestination in which Calvin refers to John 3:15. The most significant of these texts will be adduced and weighed below, but we may be bold to say that they do not appear to provide sufficient evidence to warrant the statement that the position “that Calvin himself favored the view that Jesus died only for the elect…flies in the face of the evidence in Calvin’s writings,”²¹ or is “untenable.”²² Calvin’s distinction between the “secret” and the “revealed” will of God, strongly emphasized by Armstrong as establishing a point of correspondence between Amyraut and Calvin,²³ does not provide support by logical inference in favor of universal atonement and is in fact regularly found in Reformed theologians, even those who by Armstrong’s standards would be rated as having become “scholastic.”

Norman F. Douty published in 1972 a volume entitled The Death of Christ: A Treatise Which Considers the Question: “Did Christ die only for the Elect?” A revised and enlarged edition appeared in 1978.²⁴ Douty refers repeatedly to Calvin and quotes his comments on Mark 14:24; John 1:29; 3:16, 17 ; 12:47 ; 16:7; Rom 5:18; Gal 3:10, 11; Col 1:14 mostly to demonstrate that the words “all,” “world,” “many” are construed by Calvin as having a race-wide reference. He also lists the passages quoted by Armstrong and concludes his book with a reference to Calvin’s last will and testament. The important words are as follows: “…I…seek…to be washed and purified by the great Redeemer’s blood, shed for the sins of the human race.”²⁵

The French original reads “shed for all poor sinners,” and the absence of the article might favor the connotation “all kinds of poor sinners.” The point of Calvin appears here not to be whether Christ offered himself for the whole race or for the redeemed only—a matter that would scarcely be relevant to the last will and testament—but rather that Calvin’s hope of justification rested in God’s willingness to receive “poor sinners” among whom Calvin did not hesitate to number himself.

An unpublished 197-page Th.D. dissertation of James William Anderson on “The Grace of God and the Non-elect in Calvin’s Commentaries and Sermons” was presented to the Faculty of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary in 1976. The conclusion is that Calvin’s sermons favor universal atonement. Unfortunately I have not yet had access to this work mentioned by Robert Peterson (Calvin’s Doctrine of the Atonement, 90).

1979 saw the appearance of R. T. Kendall’s Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649.²⁶ In this volume the author attempts to document that there is a great chasm between Calvin’s theology and that of his successor Beza, followed in turn by William Perkins and others and culminating in the

Westminster Assembly, which unconsciously was veering in the direction of Arminianism rather than proceeding in the path delineated by Calvin. This extremely paradoxical thesis appears to rest primarily upon the observation that Calvin grounded the assurance of faith in the conviction “that Christ died indiscriminately for all men”²⁷ and included this assurance in the very “essence of faith.”²⁸ The same position is espoused in Kendall’s essay on “The Puritan Modification of Calvin’s Theology” in John Calvin: His Influence in the Western World,²⁹ a work otherwise in line with traditional Calvinism. Kendall’s position was very vigorously disputed in devastating reviews by A. N. S. Lane,³⁰ W. Stanford Reid,³¹ and especially Paul Helm.³²

On the face of it Kendall’s view appears well-nigh incredible, for it implies that practically all the Calvinist successors of Calvin from Beza to Warfield and beyond, passing through the Synod of Dort delegates and the members of the Westininster Assembly, were basically wrong concerning the major direction of their theology. To call the Westminster Assembly doctrine of faith “crypto-Arminian”³³ is preposterous. Kendall’s position impugns also practically all the Arminian theologians for failing to recognize that Calvin was their ally in the matter of the extent of the atonement, and the Calvinists with respect to the nature of faith! Frankly, it is easier to believe that Kendall is wrong rather than this whole galaxy of theologians!

The close connection posited by Kendall between universal atonement and the assurance of faith must also be challenged, for universal atonement is neither necessary nor sufficient for assurance. It is not necessary since my understanding of how the work of Christ affects others is not essential for a perception of how it affects me. It is not sufficient since on Kendall’s showing, all covered by the atonement will not be saved; assurance, if it is to be reliable, needs to be grounded in something that actually makes a difference between the saved and the lost.³⁴

Kendall devotes two pages to discussing Calvin’s view of the extent of the atonement. Here he quotes largely the same passages of Calvin we have encountered earlier,³⁵ one of which is so wrested from its context as to appear to have a meaning opposite to that which Calvin explicitly delineated.³⁶ An argument is also drawn from the fact that Calvin did not object to the articles of the Council of Trent where Christ’s death for all men is affirmed.³⁷ But these articles simply affirmed that no other remedy to original sin and no other access to justification can be found in the whole world than through the passion of Jesus Christ. In the midst of so many questionable tenets of Trent it is understandable that Calvin would not interpose an objection at this point. On the other hand in response to Trent’s 15th Canon on justification in which personal assurance of predestination is disallowed, Calvin asserts the possibility of it although not its necessity, even though predestination, justification, and adoption are particular, not universal blessings.³⁸ In terms of this logic it is difficult to see why Calvin should have insisted on universal atonement as indispensable for the assurance of faith!

Kendall avers that Calvin distinguished sharply between expiation, which is universal, and intercession, which is particular, as well as election.³⁹ Yet Calvin says, “Whenever the death and passion of our Lord Jesus Christ is preached to us, we must at the same time add the prayer that He made.”⁴⁰ The same close connection can be observed in the Institutes 2.15.6 and in many other places.

Altogether we find Kendall flatly asserting that Calvin held to universal atonement on the basis of a handful of statements which are not compelling, to say the least, and of a logical nexus between assurance and universal atonement, which remains wholly unconvincing.⁴¹ On the other hand he chose to disregard “certain statements by Calvin himself which, some thought, support a different view” on the grounds that he is “satisfied that what [he has] shown about Calvin’s position will stand.”⁴² Others are doubtful about that.

In Calvin’s Doctrine of the Atonement⁴³ Robert A. Peterson broaches the question of Calvin’s view on the extent of the atonement at the very end of his dissertation. He is positive that Calvin held to a universal offer of grace and rejected universal salvation, but he holds that the diversity of the evidence concerning Calvin’s position on the extent of the atonement prevents a conclusion on this point.

In an Appendix to his Ph.D. dissertation Curt D. Daniel discusses the question, “Did John Calvin Teach Limited Atonement?”⁴⁴ This is by far the most extensive treatment of this topic I have ever seen. It provides more quotations of Calvin related to this precise issue than any previous writer; it discusses adequately and fairly the arguments advanced by those who have published materials in this area; it has extensive bibliographies of previous studies; it takes cognizance of three Aberdeen doctoral dissertations that were not available to me by Robert Letham, Robert Doyle, and M. Charles Bell.⁴⁵

Lest it should appear that this study makes the present essay superfluous, it must be added that Daniel’s conclusion is that Calvin held to universal atonement, while I, even after examining the data and arguments advanced by Daniel, remain convinced that the balance of evidence favors the opposite view. Daniel makes a comment to the effect that most of the contenders in this area tend to ascribe to Calvin the view which they hold themselves, that is to say, they appear to have yielded to the temptation to annex Calvin in support of their own position! Unfortunately this remark,seems to apply also to Daniel’s treatment and to the present article. One may hope, however, that in spite of a natural bias there is enough objectivity in both presentations to make them of some value.⁴⁶

The April 1983 issue of The Evangelical Quarterly was largely devoted to the same subject. It contains two articles by authors who assert that Calvin taught universal atonement (J. B. Torrance, M. Charles Bell), one by P. Helm who denies it, and one by Tony Lane, who leaves the matter in some suspense.

Charles Bell⁴⁷ examines certain Calvin passages which are quoted to support a view of definite atonement. He argues that they do not carry conviction, especially if it be acknowledged that in his biblicism Calvin did not recoil from accepting the tension between particular election and universal atonement. Bell also criticizes Kendall for his disjunction of atonement and intercession which, Bell avers, did remain indissolubly connected in Calvin’s thought.

J. B. Torrance⁴⁸ presses the thesis that the successors of Calvin operated with a scholastic Aristotelian conception of God, which in turn undermined the biblical idea of divine love, stiffened the concept of God’s covenants with humanity, asserted the priority of law over grace and thus damaged the thrust of Calvin’s biblical insights and articulation. Torrance holds that the logic of the incarnation must emphasize the priority of grace and love throughout God’s opera ad extra, so as to manifest the perfect unity in triunity of the Father who loves all his creatures, the Son who died for all, and the Spirit who draws humans to the Father.⁴⁹ Torrance does recognize a mystery here, but he does not face sufficiently squarely the fact that this construction leads to outright universalism (which is surely not Calvin’s view) or introduces a fundamental disparity between the Father’s and the Son’s saving will, which is universal, and that of the Holy Spirit, which is particular. It is not surprising that he names favorably Barth, Moltmann, and Rahner⁵⁰ (to whom he infelicitously conjoins the name of the Jansenist Pascal) and quotes with great approval James Orr in a passage of Progress of Dogma where Orr is critical of Calvin as well as of the later Calvinists! What Torrance advocates here can in any case not be promoted in the name of Calvin, even if some perplexity remains as to what his exact teaching may have been concerning the extent of the atonement and the nature and number of the covenants. Calvin’s endorsement of double predestination, of the ultimate bifurcation of human destiny, and of the forensic nature of the atonement is too clear to permit any doubt on that score. Torrance is surprised that a supralapsarian like Samuel Rutherford could also be “the saint of the covenant,”⁵¹ but this is not really puzzling to a thorough Calvinist.

Paul Helm,⁵² whose work has already been noted with reference to a critical appraisal of R. T. Kendall, wrote a stimulating article dealing with the Covenant principle before Calvin, in Calvin, and after Calvin. He marshalls evidence to show that certain well-formulated covenant structures can be found in Augustine, that all essential features of covenant theology, notably the covenant of redemption between the Father and the Son and the covenant of works between God and Adam, as well as the covenant of grace between God and the redeemed, have unmistakable roots in Calvin’s theology. The later emphases, he avers, were stimulated by the need to respond to the onset of Arminianism, but the fundamental principles were in place in Calvin and a number of others well before the beginning of the seventeenth century. It would be difficult to imagine two articles more sharply conflicting than J. B. Torrance’s and Paul Helm’s!

In an exceptionally richly documented article, Tony Lane⁵³ explores the position of Calvin over against later developments within Reformed thought and over against some claims made with respect to Calvin’s views by neo-orthodox scholars. On the specific question of definite atonement, Lane presents the arguments on both sides of the aisle and leaves the matter unresolved.⁵⁴ In his conclusion he warns that we should beware of pressing Calvin into a logical mold.⁵⁵ This is very true, but should be tempered by the principle that we should beware also of pressing him into an illogical mold!

One dominant feature of Calvin’s hermeneutics and theology is his emphasis upon divine grace as contrasted with every man-made or man-initiated basis for preference. Thus for Calvin there is ultimacy in God’s choice of some to be the recipients of his special favor, and this leads to the doctrine of predestination, in fact of the gemina praedestinatio. For Calvin there is radical disablement in man, so that God’s grace is indispensable even for, we could say especially for, the first movement of man’s soul away from sin and toward God. Sinful man still functions as a human being, but his faculties have been so encompassed and enmeshed by evil, his mind so darkened, his emotions so debased, his will so weakened and misdirected, that he has become totally unable to extricate himself from his plight and even to desire, on his initiative, to be delivered and restored to the fellowship of God. Thus only the efficacious, creative grace of God can accomplish the miracle of regeneration by which a man, on the initiative of God and the sovereign operation of the Holy Spirit, is effectually changed at the very core of his being, and his dominant disposition oriented toward God. Whenever God does accomplish this miracle he also safeguards the new life thus implanted and brings it to ultimate maturity; thus grace is seen as indefectible or inamissible. All of these positions are so clearly delineated and so frequently asserted in Calvin that it appears unnecessary to attempt here to substantiate them by quotations of, or even references to, the texts.

A sensitive point emerges, however, when one seeks to ascertain Calvin’s assessment of the relationship of the work of Christ to this sovereign, differentiating purpose of grace. Is Christ as mediator, in the thought of Calvin, the representative of mankind at large, or did he come into this world principally as the head of the covenant of grace and specifically for the purpose of representing and redeeming the elect? The answer to this question may not be as easy as may appear at first.

In the first place, Calvin does not discuss it, at least not in the terms to which we may have grown accustomed, in that part of the Institutes where he deals with the sacrifice of Christ (2.16).

Secondly, a certain ambiguity resides in some terms which are of crucial importance in this connection. For instance, “all” may vary considerably in extension: notably “all” may mean, all men, universally, perpetually and singly, as when we say “all are partakers of human nature”; or again it may have a broader or narrower reference depending upon the context in which it is used, as when we say “all reached the top of Everest,” where the scope of the discourse makes it plain that we are talking about a group of people only which set out to ascend the mountain. It is not always easy to determine with assurance what is the frame of reference in view: hence controverted interpretations both of Scripture and of individual theologians.⁵⁶ The same remarks could be made about other terms such as “every,” “world.” The pronoun “we” and related forms (“us,” “our”) present sometimes a similar ambiguity: do they refer to “us men,” or to “us Christians”?

In the third place Calvin’s manifest emphasis upon a universal indiscriminate call of the gospel to men may perplex the issue. Some would contend that such a call presupposes a universal provision, and tends to coalesce with it. Others insist that it is not so, and that the universal statements in Calvin are keyed to the scope of the external call and should be related to this only.

In the presence of these factors which make a decision difficult, it is not surprising that opinions as to Calvin’s position have varied. The desire to have the support of this most capable theologian, or conversely, to appear as different as possible from him, has no doubt exerted some influence upon the conclusions reached by individual scholars.

I. Those who have asserted that Calvin held to a universal atonement have advanced mainly the following arguments:

1. Calvin, they urge, views Christ’s mediatorship to have a race-wide reference and not to be restricted to the elective purpose of God.

This argument is bolstered by a reference to Calvin’s Commentary on 1 Tim 2:5, or by an emphasis upon the cosmic significance of the work of the Redeemer.

To this we reply that there are manifestly certain benefits which accrue to humanity at large and to the cosmos from the atoning work of Christ, that Calvin is not loath to acknowledge these, but that the specific purpose of Christ’s mediatorship is related to the impetration of salvation, which is done for those whom the Father has given him, drawn as they are from all imaginable categories in the human race, not from some narrowly defined group, like the Jews, or the poor, or males, etc., but from gentiles, or the rich, or females, etc., as well. This is the precise point of Calvin’s Commentary on 1 Tim 2:5.

he universal term ‘all’ must always be referred to classes [genera] of men but never to individuals [persona]. It is as if he had said, ‘Not only Jews, but also Greeks, not only people of humble rank, but also princes have been redeemed by the death of Christ.’ Since therefore he intends the benefit of His death to be common to all, those who hold a view that would exclude any from the hope of salvation do Him an injury.⁵⁷

It is not fair to Calvin to separate the last sentence from the remainder of the paragraph and to pretend on that basis that he advocates a universal atonement. Calvin emphasized strongly the soteriological character of Christ’s mediatorship.⁵⁸ He specifically rejects the speculations of Osiander and others as to whether Christ would have been mediator and become incarnate if no redemption were needed.⁵⁹ This discussion takes more than two-thirds of the chapter devoted to the necessity of mediatorship by the God-man. Some passages of Calvin in which universal language appears may well be explained from the vantage point of Calvin’s immense concern for the exclusivity of Christ’s mediatorship as the only way of true access to God, and contrasted with outlooks in which other intermediaries (Mary, the saints) or other principles of acceptance with God (good works, attainment in sanctification) were imagined to be effective. Here again a study of Calvin’s Commentary on 1 Tim 2:5 will be instructive.

2. In asserting, as he does repeatedly, the legitimacy of a universal, indiscriminate offer of salvation to any and to all, Calvin, they urge, presupposes a universal atonement as the logical necessary foundation for such a call.

To this we reply in acknowledging readily that Calvin does indeed assert the propriety of, yea, the divine mandate for an indiscriminate call to salvation addressed to any and all human beings that may be reached by language. We furthermore believe that Calvin was right in line with Scripture, and that those who would restrict the call to the elect are mistaken. But the proposition that the prerequisite for an indiscriminate call is a universal provision, which is the base of the whole argument, appears to us palpably and demonstrably false. Most of the well-meant offers and invitations, human as well as divine, are not grounded in coextensive provision! All that is really requisite for a well-meant offer is that, if the terms of the offer be complied with, that which was offered will in fact be delivered. This is precisely what occurs with the gospel (John 6:37), but no one fulfills the terms except those whom the Father draws (John 6:44, 65). Whether or not God has made a provision for those who do not come has nothing to do with the sincerity of the offer. No solid argument can therefore be built in favor of universal atonement on this basis.

3. Calvin, they urge, takes at face value certain biblical texts which appear to teach God’s universal saving will. Here Calvin’s Commentaries on Ezek 18:32 and on 2 Pet 3:9 are often quoted.

To this we reply that with respect to Ezek 18:32 as well as to 2 Pet 3:9, Calvin expressly distinguished between the revealed, preceptive will of God by virtue of which an appeal may be extended to all humans, and the secret, decretive will of God which draws unto him only the elect. The very strong language Calvin uses in his comments on these passages relates to the obligation to present an indiscriminate universal invitation, as already noted under 2 above.

4. Calvin, they urge, asserts with Scripture that some for whom Christ died may perish (Rom 14:15; 1 Cor 8:11) or will perish (Heb 10:29; 2 Pet 2:1). These texts, perhaps more than any others in Scripture, give the advocate of definite atonement reason to pause and ponder. And Calvin does not, either in his commentaries or in the Institutes, provide any explanation of their relationship to the extent of the atonement.

To this we reply that in the context of the problem of weaker brothers, Paul affirms that they will not perish but God will make them to stand (Rom 14:4). Thus Paul’s statements do not so much represent an expression of doubt as to God’s perseverance with his own for whom Christ died, as a castigation of the selfishness of so-called “strong” Christians who would give priority to their own exercise of Christian liberty over the spiritual eternal interests of their weaker brothers.

The warnings of Hebrews and 2 Peter, on the other hand, do relate to people who will ultimately be lost. They do not support universal atonement, since the grounds of condemnation are the special privileges enjoyed by these apostates including “being sanctified by the blood of the covenant” and “being bought by the Master.” There is no way in which these benefits can in these verses be extended to the universality of mankind. If these apostates are thought to have been regenerate at any time, however, it would appear that the scope of the atonement exceeds the scope of ultimate salvation. This would also raise a difficulty with the doctrine of perseverance. The solution may be found in viewing the description of Hebrews and 2 Peter as expressing what the apostates at one time professed to have rather than what they had in fact.

This is in any case what Calvin has opted for, as is apparent when he calls the offenders of Heb 10:29 “hypocrites…usurping a place among the faithful.”⁶⁰ This is confirmed by his treatment of Heb 6:4–6 and 10:29 in the Institutes.⁶¹ Calvin’s silence on the relationship of these four texts to the extent of the atonement should not, in all fairness, be construed as an endorsement of universal atonement, not any more than his silence in his commentaries on the relation of these texts to the doctrine of perseverance provides a substantial basis for affirming that Calvin did not believe in perseverance. Other passages prove beyond dispute that he did believe in it!

5. Calvin, they urge, did repeatedly assert universal atonement as is manifested from the following categories of statements culled from the Institutes, the commentaries, the sermons, and the tracts.

a. Christ suffered “for the redemption of mankind”⁶² or “for the salvation of the human race.”⁶³

He ordained that Christ should be the Redeemer, who would deliver the lost race of man from ruin.⁶⁴

When he says ‘the sin of the world,’ he extends this kindness indiscriminately to the whole human race, that the Jews might not think that the Redeemer has been sent to them alone.⁶⁵

He was condemned for our sins…to expiate all sins.⁶⁶

b. By Christ’s death “all the sins of the world have been expiated.”⁶⁷ God commends to us the salvation of all men without exception, even as Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world.⁶⁸ Wipe away the iniquities of the world.⁶⁹

Burdened with the sins of the whole world.⁷⁰ Paul makes grace common to all men, not because it in fact extends to all, but because it is offered to all. Although Christ suffered for the sins of the world, and is offered by the goodness of God without distinction to all, yet not all receive him.⁷¹ On him was laid the guilt of the whole world.⁷² Our Lord Jesus was offered to all the world…suffered for all.⁷³

He must be the Redeemer of the world. He must be condemned, indeed, not for having preached the Gospel, but for us He must be oppressed…. He was there, as it were, in the person of all cursed ones and of all transgressors…. He was there in our name…. He forgot Himself in order to acquit us before God…. It was all one to suffer the shames and disgraces of the world, provided that our sins be abolished and we be absolved from our condemnation.⁷⁴ It is not enough to regard Christ as having died for the salvation of the world: each man must claim the effect and possession of this grace for himself personally.⁷⁵ God is satisfied and appeased, for he bore all the wickednesses and all the iniquities of the world.⁷⁶

c. Christ was there in the place of all sinners.

So we see that Jesus Christ was laden with all our sins and iniquities.⁷⁷

He took upon himself and suffered the punishment that, from God’s righteous judgment, threatened all sinners.⁷⁸ …found before the judgment seat of God in the name of all poor sinners.⁷⁹ He willed to appear before the judgment seat of God in the name of all poor sinners (for he was there as it were, having to sustain all our burdens).⁸⁰ To this we reply that this is indeed an impressive list of statements, which could probably be extended still further. In a number of cases, however, we note that the pronouns “we,” “us,” and the adjective “our” appear in alternation with “mankind,” “all,” etc. even within the quotations presented here,⁸¹ and that many times they appear in a larger immediate context that we could not take the space to adduce here.⁸² Those to whom Calvin refers by such pronouns are not merely members of the human race, but are most commonly those who confess Jesus Christ as their Savior. The context would be determinative in each instance.

In some cases Calvin makes it clear that he contrasts the broad scope from which the elect are drawn, with a narrow-minded outlook that would restrict salvation to the Jews,⁸³ or to a few people.⁸⁴

In the context of several of these quotations a major concern of Calvin is to emphasize the exclusivity of the atoning impact of the cross in contrast to those (especially the Roman Catholics) who posited other mediators or other sources of merit.⁸⁵

Calvin is also concerned to express the sufficiency of the work of Christ so that no one inclined to claim this work and to cast himself or herself on the mercy of God should feel discouraged by thinking that somehow the cross would not avail for him/her.⁸⁶ This sufficiency is also important with reference to the indiscriminate, universal offer of grace⁸⁷ and to the personal guilt of those who reject this offer.⁸⁸

Finally in the context of many of the above quotations expressions are used that connote the actual application or attainment of salvation, not merely an impetration that would still await appropriation: “our sins are forgiven” or “wiped away,”⁸⁹ God is “satisfied” or “appeased,”⁹⁰ “we are justified,”⁹¹ “we are exempt from condemnation,”⁹² “we may partake of the Lord’s Table,”⁹³ we are “saved,”⁹⁴ “delivered,”⁹⁵ “restored to life,”⁹⁶ “reconciled.”⁹⁷ In this respect, as in so many others, Calvin’s language parallels very closely the usage of Scripture. (See for instance Rom 5:18; 8:32 ; 1 Cor 15:22; 2 Cor 5:14; Heb 2:9; 1 John 2:2). Neither the Scripture nor Calvin can be fairly interpreted to teach universal salvation, but the passages advanced as supporting universal atonement simply do not stop there. It is of course legitimate to distinguish, as Calvin clearly does, between impetration and application,⁹⁸ but it is improper to separate these, since they always go together. The choice, therefore, is not between universal atonement and definite atonement as properly representative of Calvin’s theology, but rather between universal salvation and definite atonement.

6. Calvin, they urge, far from emphasizing the use of the word “many” rather than “all” in passages like Isa 53:11, 12; Matt 20:28 (Mark 10:45); 26:28 (Mark 14:24); Rom 5:15, 19; Heb 9:28 (as upholders of definite atonement are wont to do), on the contrary does interpret some of them as connoting universality.

“Many” sometimes denotes “all.”⁹⁹

This word “many” is often as good as equivalent to all. And indeed, our Lord Jesus was offered to all the world.¹⁰⁰

“Many” is used not for a definite number, but for a large number…. And this is its meaning also in Romans 5:15, where Paul is not talking of a part of mankind but of the whole human race.¹⁰¹

The word many does not mean a part of the world only, but the whole human race.¹⁰²

He says many meaning all, as in Rom 5:15. It is of course certain that not all enjoy the fruits of Christ’s death, but this happens because their unbelief hinders them.¹⁰³

To this we reply that these quotations are indeed remarkable, since a good opportunity to assert definite atonement is here obviously by-passed. What is stated, however, is not different from the passages noted under 5c and the same kind of response would apply.

It is interesting to note that conversely Calvin does occasionally state that “all” refers to some parts of the race rather than the whole of mankind.

No nation of the earth and no rank of society is excluded from salvation, since God wills to offer the Gospel to all without exception…. He is speaking of classes and not of individuals, and his only concern is to include princes and foreign nations in this number.¹⁰⁴

Who does not see that the apostle is here speaking of orders of men rather than of individuals?¹⁰⁵

He expressly declares that salvation comes to all men, having especially in mind the slaves…. He does not mean individuals, but rather all classes of men.¹⁰⁶

When He says all, it must be limited to the elect….¹⁰⁷

When He says all it must be referred to the children of God, who are His flock.¹⁰⁸

We are commanded to pray for all…[but] the prayers which we utter for all are still limited to God’s elect. ¹⁰⁹

II. The following arguments may be advanced to support the contention that definite atonement more closely approximates Calvin’s view.

1. The strong structure of Calvin’s theology in terms of the divine purpose does appear to imply this specific reference. It seems difficult to imagine that Calvin would posit as the purpose of Christ an indefinite, hypothetical redemption, when at so many other points it is plainly apparent that the specific elective purpose of God is the controlling feature of his outlook.

2. Repeatedly Calvin asserts that God’s purpose of election is ultimate and that we cannot go behind it! To assume a hypothetical redemptive purpose more inclusive than the election of grace is doing precisely what he precludes. It is difficult to assume that Calvin would open himself to such self-contradiction.

Before the first man was created, God in His eternal counsel had determined what he willed to be done with the whole human race.

While we are elected in Christ, nevertheless God reckons us among his own prior in order to making us members of Christ.¹¹⁰

3. Calvin makes it quite plain that he views repentance and faith and all other recreative benefits of salvation to have been merited for the elect by Christ. What Christ has accomplished on the cross is not so much to secure the salvability of all humans, as actually to accomplish the salvation of those whom he does redeem.

This point is made very apparent in the whole chapter 17 of Book 2 of the Institutes entitled, “Christ rightly and properly said to have merited God’s grace and salvation for us.” We may also refer to our note 98 where the relationship of repentance and faith to the saving work of Christ is articulated in Calvin’s spirit.

4. Calvin, as well as the Scripture itself, frequently conjoins in the same sentence certain benefits which accrue only to the elect, with references to the effects or intent of the death of Christ, e.g. “Christ, who died for our trespasses, and was raised for our justification” (Rom 4:25).¹¹¹

In this connection it is important to note that there is in Calvin a great prevalence of the use of “we” (and related forms) with respect to those who are viewed as elect and redeemed.¹¹²

5. Calvin, following Scripture,¹¹³ conjoins closely the priestly work of Christ in his substitutionary death with this priestly work as intercessor.

First He offered the sacrifice of His body, and shed His blood, that He might bear the punishment due to us; and secondly, that the atonement might be powerful He performed the office of an advocate, and interceded for all who entered this sacrifice by faith.¹¹⁴

Whenever the death and passion of our Lord Jesus-Christ is preached to us, we must at the same time add the prayer that he made.¹¹⁵

Now Christ’s intercession is specifically stated to be particular (John 17:9), and so it is represented by Calvin.¹¹⁶ This undoubtedly is what has led R. G. Kendall to posit that Calvin assumed a different scope for the oblation and the intercession of Christ. But this position flies in the face of Calvin’s text, and has not received wide acceptance, even among scholars who believe that Calvin held to universal atonement. But if oblation and intercession are recognized to be coextensive, they will both be universal or both be particular. The clear-cut particularity of intercession becomes therefore a telling argument for the equal particularity of the atonement.

6. Calvin deals with texts which are usually associated with a universal saving intent in a way which shows that he was mindful at that very moment of the particular elective purpose of God. This is explicitly brought to the fore in the commentaries in Ezek 18:32; John 3:16; 2 Pet 3:9. In the commentaries and sermons on 1 Tim 2:4 and Titus 2:13 the word “all” is interpreted to refer to “all kinds or classes of men.” In relation to John 1:29 and 1 John 2:2 the word “world” is viewed as intending to transcend a nationalistic Jewish particularism. Similar interpretations are to be found in the Institutes¹¹⁷ and in the Treatise on Predestination.¹¹⁸

Now we have never met an upholder of universal atonement who would favor such an interpretation. In fact we have never met one who would hesitate to use all these texts in support of his/her view. Surely if Calvin held to universal grace, he would not find it suitable, let alone necessary, to provide such explanations for these passages. In fact, the greater the confidence that such Scriptures do in fact teach universal grace, the stronger the evidence that Calvin did not hold this doctrine, since, according to this view, he would have been led to evade the clear meaning of the texts in order to conform to the demands of his system.

7. The embarrassment which some of Calvin’s universal expressions may cause the upholder of definite atonement may be alleviated by the consideration that Calvin meant to place special emphasis on the indiscriminate call of the gospel.¹¹⁹ It is certainly in this sense that Calvin himself interprets 2 Pet 3:9 and the same hermeneutic may apply to his own statements.

8. There are in Scripture as well as in Calvin passages where the particular intent of Christ’s death is stressed. Christ gave himself for his people (Matt 1:21), for his friends (John 15:13), for the sheep (John 10:15), for his church (Eph 5:23–26; Acts 20:28), for us (Titus 2:14). Calvin’s commentaries on these passages, as well as those on John 11:52 and Heb 2:9 reflect this particularity.

9. Calvin’s statement in response to Heshusius, dealing with the participation of unbelievers in the Lord’s Supper and quoted above,¹²⁰ deserves special attention: “I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ which was not crucified for them, and how they can drink the blood which was not shed to expiate their sins.”

This appears to be a categorical denial of universal atonement. Bell¹²¹ and Daniel¹²² have tackled this statement and attempted to explain it as reflecting the viewpoint of unbelievers who were not acknowledging the relevance to them of Christ’s work rather than Calvin’s own position. But then the argument against Heshusius would be very weak, since it was precisely his contention that the unbelievers desecrated the Lord’s Supper by failing to discern the reality of Christ in, with, and under the natural species as well as the universal relevance of his atoning work. They manifested the latter form of unbelief by failing to appropriate this work in repentance and faith.

10. Calvin follows Scripture in the terms he commonly uses to describe the atoning work of Christ: “reconciliation,” “redemption,” “propitiation.” To these may be added the term “satisfaction,” not found per se in Scripture, but commonly used by theologians. All these terms connote an accomplishment that actually transforms the relationship between God and the sinner. What kind of reconciliation would be this, if estrangement continued and ultimately were to be sealed for eternity? What kind of propitiation would be this, if God continued to look upon the sinner as a child of wrath? What kind of redemption would be this, where the captives would remain in bondage after the ransom has been paid? What kind of satisfaction would be this, where God would not be satisfied but still enact punishment in the day of judgment? The language of Calvin does not fit a mere potential blessing which remains ineffective pending some performance by the sinner, which would then make it truly operative: it connotes a basic act of God, who then sees to it that it is implemented unto the salvation of all those he purposed to save.

11. Calvin functions clearly with the concept of penal substitution,¹²³ that is to say Christ on the cross underwent the divine penalty which God would otherwise inflict on the sinner. Who does not see that if this is so, and if the atonement is universal, no one will be punished at the last judgment? But this is contrary to Scripture and to Calvin. It is difficult to imagine that Calvin failed to perceive the necessary link between substitution and definite atonement, or that, having perceived it, he carried on without giving regard to this matter!

12. Calvin’s strong trinitarian view would certainly lead him to recognize a unity of purpose between the three Persons of the Godhead: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But universal atonement introduces a fundamental disjunction between the universal intent of the Son who gave himself for all and the particular purpose of the Father who elected only some people, and of the Holy Spirit, who confers regeneration, faith, and repentance to the elect only. Here again it is difficult to imagine that Calvin would remain unaware of such a fatal flaw at the heart of his theology.

13. A historical difficulty appears when we attempt to explain how Reformed thought moved so quickly from Calvin’s alleged endorsement of universal atonement to the very emphatic support of definite atonement by all but one or two of the delegations at the Synod of Dort. What happened in these fifty-five years to cause the Reformed community to make such a drastic shift? Usually the name of Beza is associated with this change, but can we really accept that his influence was so very far-reaching that he practically single-handedly reverted the whole trend in Reformed circles, putting himself at loggerheads not only with Calvin, but as it is alleged, with Scripture itself, and this without producing any major work centering on this topic? Somehow a lot more light should be shed on this area before such an unlikely development can be assumed to have taken place.

Our conclusion, on balance, is that definite atonement fits better than universal grace into the total pattern of Calvin’s teaching.

--End of Article--

Taken in part from the Westminster Theological Journal 47:2 (Fall 1985).