Continuity problems between Calvin and later Calvinism

Kyungpook National University

Visiting Professor

Kyungpook National University

Sangju Campus

South Korea

Conjoint lecturer of Avondale College

Australia

22 July 2011

In an article by Kevin D. Kennedy, "Hermeneutical discontinuity between Calvin and later Calvinism" Scottish Journal of Theology 64/3 (2011): 299-312 he demonstrated how Calvin may not have shared the later views of Calvinists on the matter of atonement. Especially the words Christ gave His life for many, Calvin understood it to mean that Christ died for all, but later Calvinists insisted that it is actually a limited opportunity.

Richard A. Muller wrote extensively, as pointed out by Kennedy (2011: 299) to defend the continuity of Calvin and later Calvinists. We know that limited grace and limited salvation and limited atonement was strongly advocated by the successor of Calvin, Theodore Beza. But is there a link between Predestination of later Calvinists and Calvin on this matter?

Muller wrote on Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination in Reformed Theology (Durham, NC: Labyrinth Press, 1986) and The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition in Oxford Studies in Historical Theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000); After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition in Oxford Studies in Historical Theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003).

Kennedy differs with Muller in this way:

"Calvin differs significantly from the later Reformed Tradition in his handling of certain passages which are central to the later tradition's formulation of one of its more controversial doctrines - limited atonement, also referred to as particular redemption" (Kennedy 2011: 300).

Whether Muller wants to argue with Kennedy on this point, one have to say that Thomas Myers in 1853 broke with the tradition of historicism so prevalent in Calvin's writings with some tongue in the cheek statements about it in his Appendix to the commentary to Daniel by Calvin, discussing all the models of interpretation and then suggested one that is known as idealism. Much of modern Calvinism is entangled between preterism flopping over to idealism in their sermons, theology and commentaries. It is a clean allocation with reality out then to reality now with visible breaks between. What it meant is differentiated clearly with what it means. Sometimes what it means is overriding what it meant. So just from the angle of prophetic interpretation models one can safely conclude that due to the 1843/4 disappointment with the historicism model of prophetic chronology, Calvinism hopped on the bus with Catholicism and ever since joined their scenarios and echoing their interpretation. Whether one should follow Kennedy's reasoning for the atonement also as a discontinuity with Calvin, is the subject of Kennedy's paper.

It is known that key passages on salvation is interpreted by Calvinists that Christ came to die for the elect alone and not for the entirety of humanity (Kennedy 2011: 301).

Matthew 20:28 states that Christ came to give His life as a ransom for many. Only for many and not for all is the customary interpretation of later Calvinists.

Isaiah 53:12 says He "bore the sins of many" and in similar vein they pointed out that it is for many but not for all.

John Owen, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1967), reproduced from The Works of John Owen, vol. 10 (Edinburgh: Johnstone & Hunter, 1850-1853).

Kennedy pointed out that Owen begins his first chapter with an appeal to Matthew 20:28. He argued that Christ died only for many and not for all. When confronted with a text that say Christ died for all, Owen (1850) said that Christ died for all sorts of people, all the elect, for Gentiles as well as Jews (Kennedy 2011: 302).

Calvin said:

"'Many' is used, not for a definite number, but for a large number (Multos ponit non definite pro certo numero, sed pro pluribus), in that he sets Himself over against all others. And this is the meaning also in Rom. 5:15, where Paul is not talking of a part of mankind but of the whole human race (ubi Paulus non de aliqua hominum parte agit, sed totum humanum genus complecitur" in John Calvin, New Testament Commentaries, ed. D. W. and T. F. Torrance, 12 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1959-72), vol. 2, A Harmony of the Gospels: Matthew Mark and Luke, Matthew 20:28. Citation is from Kennedy (2011): 302.

There is no doubt that this passage of Calvin is arguing for many to mean all.

But, the other hermeneutical rule of Calvin is that all does not always mean all.

Contrary scholars are using John 6:45 and Calvin's commentary on it to proof that Calvin does not want to let all mean the whole world (Kennedy 2011: 308-309).