Journal: Westminster Theological Journal
Volume: WTJ 70:2 (Fall 2008)
Article: Calvin’s Forgotten Classical Position On The Extent Of The Atonement: About Sufficiency, Efficiency, And Anachronism
Author: Pieter L. Rouwendal

WTJ 70:2 (Fall 2008) p. 317

Calvin’s Forgotten Classical Position
On The Extent Of The Atonement:
About Sufficiency, Efficiency, And Anachronism

P. L. Rouwendal

Pieter L. Rouwendal is a theological editor with De Groot Goudriaan Publishers, Kampen, The Netherlands. He is also currently writing a Ph.D. dissertation on “Predestination and Preaching in Genevan Theology from John Calvin to Jean Alphonse Turretin.”

I. The Question

Did Calvin teach particular, universal, or hypothetical universal atonement? This question has attracted a lot of attention during the last decennia, especially since the 1979 publication of R. T. Kendall’s Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649. Kendall argued that Calvin taught universal atonement.1 His opinion was challenged by Paul Helm and Roger Nicole, who tried to prove that Calvin did not teach (hypothetical) universalism, and to make plausible that he taught particular redemption.2 Kendall was supported by Curt Daniel and Allan C. Clifford.3 And even more authors participated in the discussion. Obviously, Kendall had addressed a sensitive subject.4

I found the results of the research of both parties unsatisfactory. First, the conclusions of both are diametrically opposed to each other; they cannot both be right. Second, both parties offer arguments and quotes from Calvin to prove their position without fully addressing the interpretation of the opposing party.

WTJ 70:2 (Fall 2008) p. 318

Third, some of the authors prove themselves to be greatly involved in the subject. They ascribe to Calvin the view they have themselves, or they accommodate their own opinion to what they believe Calvin’s view to have been.5 Hence, it seems that for some authors their own opinion was of equal or more weight than Calvin’s writings. Some appear to have sought proof texts in Calvin that supported their own view on the atonement. They just looked for arguments and quotations that supported their opinion that Calvin basically subscribed to the same view as they themselves, but then they failed to take into account the arguments and quotations of the other party and hence failed either to refute those arguments or to give them a coherent place in their own view.

This existential involvement raises the question whether people who presuppose that their view either agrees or must agree with Calvin’s (for whatever reason), can distance themselves sufficiently from the subject of...