Lately I’ve been interacting with a number of people who call themselves “moderate Calvinists”. I’ll be honest, it has been frustrating (for both sides, I’m sure). One reason is a body of literature they have read, that I haven’t, and they point to as authoritative. They usually despise John Owen, and (from my perspective) take comments by scholars (Owen and otherwise) out of context for their arguments.
Moses Amyraut- the original 4-Pointer
They hold to a “hypothetical atonement” instead of a particular atonement. They are similar to the Amyraldian position (they resist this label) in that the atonement is universal in extent, even if only efficient for the elect. They recognize the reality of the elect. So they’ve got that going for them.
One claim I’ve heard from them is that the Canons of Dort do not support the doctrine of limited or particular atonement as espoused by 5-Point Calvinists. (If I’ve misunderstood in the flood of verbiage, I’ll recant.) They see the 5-Points as a modern formulation (yeah, so?), that has no basis in the work of Calvin and the Canons. I thought I’d look at the Canons (it has been awhile) and see what I find. It is kind of hard to re-read all of Calvin on this topic.
The Second Head of Doctrine is Of the Death of Christ, and the Redemption of Men Thereby. Article I is on the necessity of atonement to make satisfaction for sin. Article II is on man’s inability to make a satisfaction for himself or another party. Only Christ, the only-begotten of the Father, can make proper satisfaction for the sin as our Representative.
“The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin; it is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.” Article III
This is about the value of Christ’s atoning work. Notice, it is not about the actual intent of the work. This formula of “sufficient for all” dates at least to Peter Lombard, and was used by Calvin as well. It is sufficient. But that doesn’t mean Jesus died for everyone.
“They who seek to avoid this absurdity (extending salvation to the reprobate), have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has common prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world.” John Calvin on 1 John 2
Article IV says that this value is derived from the reality of Jesus as fully God as well as fully man. Article V is about the free offer of the gospel.
“Moreover the promise of the gospel is, that whosoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish, but have everlasting life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God out of his good pleasure sends the gospel.”
Sounds like what I’ve read in Calvin in numerous places (much to the consternation of hyper-Calvinists). All people everywhere, being under condemnation, are responsible to repent and believe. All Christians are responsible to make the death of Christ for sinners known.
Notice, they tie the free offer of the gospel to the goodness of God. They do not tie it to the intent or extent of the atonement like “moderate Calvinists” do. The “moderates” find the offer disingenuous unless Jesus has died for everyone. This would be true, if anyone actually believed and God said “sorry, you’re not one of the elect.” Rather, due to total depravity or inability, NO ONE would believe said promise unless God first elected and regenerated them. The offer of the gospel is tied, in my opinion, to God’s will of precept or command.
Article VI is about how the failure to repent and believe is not due to any fault, defect or insufficiency in the atonement, but is completely imputed to them. They hate God and refuse to believe because they are dead in sins and trespasses. In Article VII, we see why those who believe do believe.
“But as many as truly believe, and are delivered and saved from sin and destruction through the death of Christ, are indebted for this benefit solely to the grace of God given them in Christ from everlasting, and not to any merit of their own.”
The elect believe because of the grace given to them by God in Christ. I’ve talked with people who were attracted to the Barthian position (popularized by Robert Shank) that Christ is the elect One (He is) and all who place themselves in Him by faith are therefore elect. But they can’t seem to answer how people dead in sins and trespasses find themselves or place themselves in Christ. The Canons of Dort, following 1 Corinthians 1, say that it is because God put us in Christ. This removes any “saveable state” like Clark Pinnock’s (before he went completely off the rails with open theism). (The moderate’s use of ‘saveable state’ is what initially led me to think they followed Pinnock’s doctrine, but they reject that notion.) And now we get to the key point in Article VIII.
“For this was the sovereign counsel and most gracious will and purpose of God the Father, that the quickening and saving efficacy of the most precious death of his Son should extend to all the elect, for bestowing upon them alone the gift of justifying faith, hereby to bring them infallibly to salvation: that is, it was the will of God, that Christ by the blood of the cross, whereby he confirmed the new covenant, should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and language, all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation, and given to him by the Father; that he should confer upon them faith, which, together with all the other saving gifts of the Holy Spirit, he purchased for them by his death; should purge them from all sin…”
The extent of the atonement is “universal” is that it encompasses people from every people, tribe, nation, and language. But the extent of the atonement is particular in that it is limited to the elect. Though sufficient for all, it was intended for the elect. Jesus does not hypothetically redeem people, but effectually redeemed people on the cross. That is a BIG difference.
“They might have had some ground for saying this, if Paul were speaking here about individual men; … for the Apostle simply means, that there is no people and no rank in the world that is excluded from salvation; because God wishes that the gospel be proclaimed to all without exception.” John Calvin on 1 Timothy 2
This does not deny that faith is the instrumental means. But we see here that saving faith is purchased for us by Christ, and given to us. This is completely consistent with the “modern formulation”. There was no corruption of the theology.
The recent development of TULIP as a pedagogical device is a red herring. The points are not innovative, but derived from the Canons of Dort. I am no Calvin scholar. I have read the Institutes through once, and many sections a few more times. I read his commentaries as I prepare my sermons. I’ve yet to see anything that would be contrary to the doctrines expressed in TULIP.
Thomas Boston: Defender of the Free Offer and Particular Atonement
One of the great books advocating the free offer of the gospel, The Marrow of Modern Divinity, does not teach a universal atonement either. In his notes, Thomas Boston defends particular atonement. The promiscuous proclamation is tied with the fact that God has concealed the identity of the elect from us. We proclaim Christ crucified for sinners who will be saved if they believe. This is our warrant to believe- the promise of God. The elect hear and believe. Those who aren’t, reject the message and promise. It is unnecessary for us to hold to a universal atonement in order to believe in the free offer of the gospel.
There is a big difference between a hypothetical Savior and a Savior. One saves if… The other saves! Historic Calvinism is about the Christ who actually redeems. To have a Jesus who hypothetically or conditionally redeems is to have a mutated Calvinism. But novelty, being what novelty is, they attack the historic position as … novelty.
Cavman Considers 
If someone is claiming to be a Moderate Calvinist, it might help if they knew what Calvin actually wrote regarding the topic, huh?
“Lo, you see plainly that Christ bore the penalty of sins to deliver his own people…” (3.4.30)
Whence it comes about that the whole world does not belong to its Creator except that grace rescues from God’s curse and wrath and eternal death a limited number who would otherwise perish.” (3.22.7)
“Through Isaiah he still more openly shows how he directs the promises of salvation specifically to the elect: for he proclaims that they alone, not the whole human race without distinction, are to become his disciples. . .” (3.22.10)
“If he willed all to be saved he would set his Son over them, and would engraft all into his body with the sacred bond of faith.” (3.22.10)
Oh, but some guy says that doesn’t exist and Calvin didn’t hold to Particular Atonement. Oh, I’m being caustic again.
Why is opposing distortion seen as caustic?
Knowing this debate, how can one then read the book of Hebrews and not see that Jesus sacrifice is so much better than the OT sacrifices? The OT sacrifices showed and reminded that sin is costly, a penalty must be paid, but clearly Hebrews 8 goes further in saying Jesus was an actual mediator [not merely making sinners savable], his ministry was far superior to the OT priests, that because of what Jesus did, God will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.
Moving on to Hebrews 9 the contrast is given that the OT was all shadow of a greater reality and that Jesus was the greater reality, the actual High Priest who actually obtained eternal redemption, that it was the shedding of blood of this High Priest that brings about forgiveness, for without it, there is no forgiveness.
Jesus therefore appeared in God’s presence “for us” [Mt.1:21 he will save his people from their sins] Jesus actually did away with sins power by his one offering of himself! so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people. Not make all savable, not pay for the sins of all but to take away the sins of many people.
Hello Steve,
Actually the Marrow of Modern Divinity does teach a universal expiation. It says,
“Evan. I beseech you consider, that God the Father, as he is in his Son Jesus Christ, moved with nothing but with his free love to mankind lost, hath made a deed of gift and grant unto them all, that whosoever of them all shall believe in this his Son, shall not perish, but have eternal life. 1 And hence it was, that Jesus Christ himself said unto his disciples, (Mark 16:15), “Go and preach the gospel to every creature under heaven”: 2 that is, Go and tell every man without exception, that here is good news for him; Christ is dead for him; and if he will take him, and accept of his righteousness, he shall have him.” (Chapter II, Section III, 3 The warrant to believe in Christ.)
Nor is it true that moderate Calvinists, like myself, believe in a hypothetical atonement. You have fallen into either/or thinking on this subject when it is both/and. Your position on this is that of the high-Calvinist – i.e. strict limited atonement: limited extent and limited intent. The moderate Calvinist maintains a limited atonement: unlimited extent but limited intent.
Jim
Jim,
There are numerous times in Boston’s notes, and The Marrow, when they defend their views against charges of a universal atonement.
I don’t think I’ve misunderstood you. I understand you hold to unlimited extent but limited intent.
I struggle to understand how that works apart from a hypothetical atonement. And I believe that term was used in previous conversations with “moderate Calvinists”, but perhaps I am mistaken and it was used by someone else.
While I hold to a limited extent and intent, I hold to an unlimited value. I do find this view in Calvin.
Since I have mislabeled your view of the atonement, what term would you (and other moderate (I’d say low) Calvinists) like people to use?
Should I be using the term “hypothetical covenant”? Yet that sounds much like neo-nomianism.
Here is a review (http://www.reformation21.org/shelf-life/the-marrow-controversy-and-seceder-tradition.php) of a new book about the Marrow Controversy. From that review:
Notwithstanding this, VanDoodewaard concludes that the Marrow men were uniform ‘in holding to particular redemption and penal substitution’ as well as denying universalism (104-5). The issues of faith as a condition of the covenant of grace and the relationship of faith to assurance were also critical to the debate, and the author shows the care which the Marrow men took to nuance these concepts.
But it is in the area of the gospel offer that the Marrow controversy, it seems to me, came into its own. While upholding particular redemption, the Marrow men were impassioned in their free and unfettered gospel offer to all. VanDoodewaard’s careful analysis of the controversy shows that any tendency to universalise Christ’s redemption or to conditionalise God’s covenant of grace logically leads to a truncated and compromised position on the free offer of salvation.