Was Calvin a
Calvinist?
A Response to Norman Geisler and C. Gordon Olson
*Part One*
The development of Moderate Calvinism and the Influence of R.T.
Kendall
I. Mediate
Theology and Theological Revisionism: What is
Moderate Calvinism?
II. RT
Kendall: The Contemporary Source for the Claim
that Calvin was not a Calvinist
Appendix 1: The
Actual History of Moderate Calvinism
“…strong Calvinists wrongly believe they have a franchise on the
term ‘Calvinist,’ when in fact, as I have shown…even John Calvin was not a
five-point, strong Calvinist, which they assert one must be to lay claim to the
term.”[1] -Norman Geisler
Recently I attended a series of talks at a local church exploring the differences between Arminianism and Calvinism. The lecturer explained he espoused neither position, but rather held a “mediate theology of salvation.” The mediate view seeks to establish a viable alternative between the two polarized camps of Calvinism and Arminianism. The two primary texts used to develop this position were Norman Geisler’s Chosen But Free, and C. Gordon Olson’s Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism.
Most Christians are familiar with the name Norman Geisler. He is considered a leading author, apologist and Christian philosopher. With the release of Chosen But Free in 1999, Dr. Geisler claimed to be neither Calvinist nor Arminian, but rather espoused a third alternative- a position he maintained is correct biblical doctrine, relieved of the historical baggage and philosophy carried by both Calvinism and Arminianism.
C. Gordon Olson is not nearly as well known. Dr. Olson was a long-time professor at the now defunct Northeastern Bible College in Essex Fells New Jersey. Beyond Arminianism and Calvinism appears to be self-published, and has found its way into a number of churches and Christian bookstores in the New York City area. It is twice the length of Chosen But Free, but basically attempts the same “third alternative.” Olson cites Chosen But Free frequently, as well as KJV-only advocate Laurence Vance’s The Other Side of Calvinism. Olson has coined the term “mediate theology.” I find this description quite appropriate for the endeavor of both Geisler and Olson. Whether or not they establish this “third alternative” (biblically and historically), is another question entirely.
Mediate theologians evaluate Calvinism and Arminianism for their strengths and weaknesses. They attempt to Biblically defend particular doctrines taken from each they believe represent correct Christian doctrine. Gordon Olson explains the mediate position:
“My thesis is that there is a viable
middle or mediate position which has been grossly neglected, even repressed.
Indeed, among Evangelicals there is a substantial centrist mainstream of
Christians who see themselves somewhere in the middle. They might facetiously
refer to themselves as 'Calminian.' Many might call themselves Calvinists
because they hold to eternal security, but don't accept much of the rest of the
Calvinistic system.”[2]
Olson has expressed an important facet of the mediate view: its attempt to salvage particular elements of both Calvinism and Arminianism that appeal to modern day evangelicals. For instance, contemporary Evangelicals are prone to declare substitutionary atonement unabashedly, but when questioned on the logical implications of such a doctrine, they almost unanimously deny Calvinistic limited atonement. Similarly, Evangelicals cling to the Arminian notion of free will as the deciding factor in salvation, but face tough questions on how it is logically possible to also hold the doctrine of eternal security. A mediate theologian seeks to answer such questions without being obligated into either the defined corners of the Calvinist or Arminian. Thus, the mediate view takes appealing elements of both soteriologies, and attempts to give Biblical support to popular Evangelical beliefs.
Both Geisler and Olson have had to explain how their view fits historically in the context of Christian history. For instance, Dr. Geisler historically substantiates his mediate doctrine of human ability in salvation by explaining that “virtually all the great thinkers up to the Reformation affirmed that human beings posses the power of contrary free choice, even in a fallen state.”[3] He also claims St. Augustine as an advocate of mediate-friendly doctrines (though only his earlier writings).[4] Gordon Olson likewise affirms a historical basis for the mediate system: “At the Synod of Orange (529), a semi-Augustinian consensus was achieved which was the official position of the Western church until the reformation, even though in the main it became semi-Pelagian in practice.”[5] Both authors then, find continuity between their view and previous generations of believers (Below in Appendix 1 is a closer look at the authentic history of moderate Calvinism).
The mediates also claim the support of John Calvin for their view. They suggest that those holding to modern-day Calvinism have actually gone beyond what Calvin taught and believed. They explain that Calvin held doctrines in common with mediate theology that clearly oppose historic Calvinism. Olson says,
“Indeed there
is significant evidence that John Calvin did not consistently hold to what
passes today for Calvinism, especially in the later years, and that Jacob
Arminius never really became fully ‘Arminian’ before his untimely death. Thus
it was their followers who polarized the traditions significantly.”[6]
Norman Geisler calls those who (allegedly) go beyond Calvin “extreme Calvinists,” while mediates who interpret him (allegedly) correctly are “moderate Calvinists”:
“An extreme
Calvinist is someone who is more Calvinistic than John Calvin (1509 – 1564),
the founder of Calvinism. Since it can be argued that John Calvin did not
believe in limited atonement…then it would follow that those who do are extreme
Calvinists.”[7]
Geisler says also,
“At first
blush, it may seem absurd to ask whether John Calvin was a Calvinist. But he
was not the first in the history of thought to have his views be distorted by
his disciples. In fact, many of the great thinkers were misunderstood by their
followers.”[8]
Against this background, I would like to present an examination of John Calvin’s Calvinism, and prove that mediate theology cannot claim Calvin’s support for moderate Calvinism. Nor are they correct in their claim that John Calvin held different soteriological views than later orthodox Reformed theologians. Nor are they correct to define historic Calvinism as extreme. In describing their theological view, they should not even be using the words “Calvin” or “Calvinism,” since their mediate system stands in antithesis to those words.
In Chosen But Free, Dr. Geisler presents a litany of quotes from Calvin as proof that Calvin was not a Calvinist. He says, “…it seems clear that Calvin was not a Calvinist at one crucial point: limited atonement.”[9] Why is this clear to Dr. Geisler? Because Dr. Geisler has read R.T. Kendall’s book, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649. He calls it a “classic work.”[10] This book seems to be the sole support Geisler uses to verify his conclusion on Calvin.[11] Olson relies on Geisler’s Chosen But Free and Kendall’s book for almost the entirety of his substantiation that Calvin was not a Calvinist.[12] Thus, Kendall’s work serves as the main source for moderate Calvinist claims.
Kendall’s book contains complex argumentation. It is not simply a book about the extent of the atonement, but rather a comparison of Kendall’s interpretation of Calvin and subsequent Puritan theology[13]. Kendall popularized the notion that modern day Calvinists derive their theology from Theodore Beza rather than John Calvin.[14] This is not simply an academic charge to be discussed by theologians with nothing better to do. Kendall is asserting that Beza and his followers created a system of works salvation, diametrically opposed to Calvin’s teachings (particularly the Puritans). This is a weighty criticism in light of Paul’s comment: “If we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!” (Gal. 1:8). In a lengthy response to Kendall, Paul Helm asks,
“When the
treatises of John Owen, or the commentaries of Charles Hodge, or the sermons of
Spurgeon are consulted, is material that distorts the biblical message being
read, or is it material that can be expected to be helpful in a proper
interpretation of Scripture? Are these authors, though fallible, nevertheless
reliable guides? Or are they – despite what they themselves believed- teaching
salvation by works?”[15]
Kendall argued that Calvin did not teach limited atonement, but rather universal atonement. Helm explains Kendall’s position:
“Kendall holds
that Calvin makes a crucial distinction between Christ’s death and his
intercession. They differ, he says, in their scope. Calvin, he asserts, taught
that Christ died for all, yet he does not intercede for all, but only for the
elect, and only the elect are saved. On this view there are those for whom
Christ died who will not be saved. Furthermore, Kendall says, the importance of
stressing that Christ died for all is that Christ’s death can be the pledge of
God’s love to all, and so provide a warrant for assured faith.”[16]
The overall thrust of Kendall’s argument is the assurance of salvation: only by holding to an unlimited atonement can one of God’s elect know with certainty that they are saved. Kendall attributes this understanding to Calvin.[17] Helm evaluates this view of Calvin and states,
“As far as it is
possible to tell, no one has attributed to Calvin what Kendall attributes to
him. This fact is of enormous importance in assessing the probability that
Kendall is giving the correct view. It is not sufficient for Kendall to point
out that 'this significant (and crucial) point in Calvin's thought seems to
have been overlooked by a number of scholars'. This is a gross understatement,
for the point has not been noticed by a single scholar that Kendall is able to
cite. Such a view was never, it seems, attributed to Calvin in the thorough and
at times tortuous theological debates of the post-Reformation period. This is
of special importance in assessing the plausibility of Kendall’s view of
Calvin. For what a field-day the acute theological minds of the time would have
had if Calvin had made such a distinction. Did Christ die for those whom he
knew the Father had not elected? Did he die for some for whom he knew he would
not intercede? In what sense, if any, are those for whom Christ died, but for
whom he does not intercede, saved? Is the intercession of Christ a work in
addition to his work of atonement on the cross? There is no trace of such
questions being raised in connection with Calvin's view. Can what Kendall
alleges be so central and crucial to Calvin's position? Is it not more
reasonable to conclude that Calvin made no such distinction between the death
and intercession of Christ, and that Kendall has projected ideas unknown to
Calvin into later debates in which Calvin never engaged?”[18]
Interestingly, Kendall does not deny that Calvin believed in particular election or predestination. Indeed, Kendall’s Calvin holds that only the elect are eternally predestined to salvation.[19] Faith is still the gift of God given to His chosen people.[20] Therefore, Kendall is not completely redefining Calvin against the Calvinists, but the issues Kendall does raise are of vital importance to modern Calvinists.[21]
It is important at this point to distinguish Kendall’s work from that of Geisler, Olson, or other contemporary mediate thinkers. Geisler and Olson only utilize Kendall’s research on Calvin’s view rather than agreeing with that view. Geisler and Olson do not hold that God has chosen specific individuals for salvation while passing over others. Neither Geisler nor Olson believe faith is a gift given only to the elect. The mediate theologians take only those specific facts from Kendall which boost their theology, and then leave the rest behind.[22] It is enough for them to seize Kendall’s research that attempts to prove Calvin held unlimited atonement. To flesh that research out for their readers and show how mediate theology is still in antithesis to Calvin is not done. Hence, the readers of either Chosen But Free or Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism are left with the idea that Calvin was a “moderate Calvinist” just like they are, which is far from accurate.
Dr. Geisler echoes Kendall’s sentiment, and notes: “Kendall’s view is not only one of a noted Calvinist, squarely based in the texts of Calvin and not in a theological attempt to make Calvin consistent with one’s preconceived concept of ‘Calvinism.’”[24] If Kendall is such a “noted Calvinist” as Geisler claims, one wonders if anyone who claims to be a Calvinist would ever say as Kendall did: “I also wonder how many Christians would ever come to the view of limited atonement merely by reading the Bible! I can safely guarantee that the traditional doctrine of limited atonement is arrived at by logic and the need to look for it rather than straightforward reading of the Scriptures.”[25] I have never read any bonifide advocate of Reformed theology that would ever say such a thing. Thus, I question not only Geisler’s assessment of Kendall, but whether or not Kendall himself currently advocates Calvinism.
As to Geisler’s claim that those who present opposing material to Kendall do so based on “one’s preconceived concept of ‘Calvinism,’” the burden of proof falls on Dr. Geisler. As it stands, it is merely an unsubstantiated opinion. Similarly with Kendall’s comment that those opposing him do so on “a priori aspirations along traditional Reformed lines,” he also shoulders the burden of proof to substantiate his assertion. More than a few authors have reviewed Kendall’s work. He should step up and defend his position, or concede that his position is historically inaccurate.
Appendix 1. The Actual
History of Moderate Calvinism
The term “moderate Calvinist” is not the
invention of Norman Geisler. Michael Horton has pointed out, “Historically,
‘moderate Calvinism’ has referred to the seventeenth-century Amyraldian
position within the Reformed churches. Soon rejected by those churches, this
moderate Calvinism rejected particular redemption (‘limited atonement’) and
held to mediate imputation. Geisler’s position is much further from Calvinism
than Amyraldianism- in some respects, even beyond Arminians.”[26]
The book Four Views on Eternal Security
is a debate/dialog book that features four authors from different perspectives.
Dr. Geisler was chosen to present the “moderate Calvinist” view. Geisler
had presented this same position a few years earlier in Chosen But Free,
where he contrasted “moderate Calvinism” against “extreme Calvinism.”
The term “extreme Calvinism” is not only historically inaccurate, but
also derogatory. Gordon Olson at least realizes this, and attempts an apology
for his use of the term:
“My
Calvinistic friends may feel all of these are prejudicial and pejorative, and
if it seems so, I apologize. Norman Geisler uses the term extreme Calvinists,
and I use it without any pejorative intent. Most of my friends, associates,
former professors, pastors, and colleagues are Calvinists of one kind or
another, and I have no desire to insult them.”[27]
One wonders that if “extreme Calvinists” are simply, in historically understood terms, “Calvinists,” and “moderate Calvinists” could be arguably shown to be in essence, “Arminians,” are there some other groups not mentioned? Perhaps “Mild Calvinists”? Would these be Pelagians? It would seem then, that everyone embracing the Christian faith to any degree or extent is some thus form of “Calvinist.” There could even be “extremely mild Calvinists” to designate Unitarians! It becomes clear how using terms the way Dr. Geisler has, eliminates it from meaning anything substantial. Dr. Geisler seems to have some vague awareness that these terms will be rejected. He states: “We should note that theologians we classify as extreme Calvinists consider themselves simply ‘Calvinists’ and would probably object to our categorizing them in this manner.”[28] James White has commented,
Dr. Geisler’s
“moderate Calvinism” will be shown to be merely a modified form of historic
Arminianism. In fact, there are really only two elements of the viewpoint of
CBF that are in fact “borrowed” from Calvinism: the concept of a
substitutionary atonement (alien to Arminianism) and “eternal security,”
likewise utterly inconsistent with Arminian beliefs. Beyond these two issues,
CBF presents a thoroughly non-Reformed position under the name “moderate
Calvinism.” And such is simply indefensible.”[29]
In the book Four Views on Eternal Security,
the general editor did not allow Dr. Geisler to use the term “extreme
Calvinism,” but rather had Geisler use the term “strong Calvinism.”
The editor explains his reasoning: “This form of Calvinism has been called
by several names, such as ‘classical,’ ‘traditional,’ ‘strong,’ and ‘extreme.’
A case can be made for each. The editor of this volume prefers the first,
…since ‘strong’ is less controversial and fits better with ‘Moderate’ Calvinism
with which it is contrasted here, we have chosen to use it for the purpose of
this dialog.” [30]
The editor (J. Matthew Pinson) also provided
the an excellent historical survey of “moderate Calvinism”:
“Moderate
Calvinism is the phrase I have chosen to designate those who come out of a
Calvinist heritage but have significantly moderated their Calvinism, especially
its predestinarian elements. Most Baptists today fit this description, as well
as a host of evangelicals in free-church congregations, denominations, and parachurch
groups. The most common form of moderate Calvinism holds to a Moderated version
of total depravity and to the perseverance of the saints. Yet it either
jettisons the middle three points of TULIP or reinterprets them in a way that
differs radically from Classical Calvinism. Curiously, the first people to hold
such views started as General Baptists, the Arminian Baptists who originated in
early seventeenth-century England. A group of General Baptists in the late
seventeenth century began to moderate their Arminianism. They did so to the
point that it changed from a belief in the possibility of apostasy from the
Christian life to the unconditional perseverance of the saints. They, like
other General Baptists, had always affirmed total depravity. After the shift to
unconditional perseverance, they continued to hold to election conditioned on
foreseen faith, general (unlimited) atonement, and resistible grace. They
articulated this perspective in a confession of faith entitled "The
Orthodox Creed" (1689). It is doubtful, however, that these early general-atonement
Baptists had any connection with later Moderate Calvinists in the Baptist
tradition. Moderate Calvinism is a nineteenth- and twentieth-century
phenomenon. Some historians argue that Baptists in North America began to
soften the hard edges of traditional Calvinism in the nineteenth century. This
doctrinal shift, they maintain, coincided with the spread of the Separate
Baptist movement and the wide acceptance of the New Hampshire Confession of
Faith. Baptist theologians in both the North and South held as strenuous a
brand of Calvinism as that of their Princeton Presbyterian colleagues. However,
Baptists in the pew, aflame with the fires of frontier revivalism, began to
moderate the strict Calvinism of their forebears. Other historians place the
erosion of traditional Baptist Calvinism in the early twentieth century with
teachers such as E. Y. Mullins and L. R. Scarborough. At any rate. Moderate
Calvinism became the majority view among Baptists in the late nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries. Many dispensationalists in groups like the Plymouth
Brethren and the Bible church movement also moderated their Calvinism
considerably. Some of those I am calling Moderate Calvinists have recently
begun to refer to themselves as moderate Arminians. Others within the Southern
Baptist Convention, for example, now espouse a full-blown Arminianism, complete
with the possibility of loss of salvation.”[31]
[1] Norman Geisler, cited in J. Matthew Pinson, Four Views on Eternal Security (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 46-47.
[2] C. Gordon Olson, Beyond Calvinism and Arminianism: An Inductive Mediate Theology of Salvation (New Jersey: Global Gospel Publishers, 2002), 29.
[3] Norman Geisler, Chosen But Free, [first edition] (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1999), 145. Henceforth I shall refer to this book as “CBF”. All quotations are from the 1st edition unless specified. In regards to Dr. Geisler’s argument, it should be apparent to any conservative protestant evangelical that consensus does not define truth. Simply because a large number of church fathers believed a particular doctrine does not make that doctrine true. The Reformers fought and died for sola scriptura. What makes a doctrine true is whether or not Scripture teaches it. Dr. Geisler is probably well aware that a large number of church fathers also believed in baptismal regeneration, I strongly doubt whether he would agree that this is also a true doctrine. Secondly, Calvinists do not assert that man does not make contrary choices; the Calvinist asserts that man enslaved to sin cannot make ultimate God-pleasing choices.
[4] Geisler says, “We have been
defending a moderate form of Calvinism. This view is not new. Its roots are
found in the early writings of St. Augustine…St. Augustine's earlier view was a
more moderate form of what I have called extreme Calvinism. In our opinion, had
Augustine not been thrown off track by his view of baptismal regeneration and
the coercion of heretics to believe (during the Donatist controversy), extreme
Calvinists would find no substantial support in the whole history of the
Christian church up to the Reformation” (CBF, 129-130).
[5] Olson, 29-30. Olson distinguishes the semi-Augustinian view from Semi-Pelagianism: “Semi-Pelagianism is the view that man contributes to his own salvation by his own good works. The ignorance of the semi-Augustinian view has led many Calvinists to erroneously label any mediate view as ‘semi-Pelagian’ and ‘synergistic’”[Olson, 30]. On the other hand, Olson defines semi-Augustinians as those who do not follow Augustine “in his view of unconditional election and irresistible grace. Many of them emphasized God’s initiative in salvation by some reference to prevenient grace…”[Olson, 399]. Olson’s comment that the semi-Augustinian consensus at Orange became semi-Pelagian “in practice” makes one wonder if the distinction he attempts to make between the two positions isn’t more semantic than it is factual.
[9] CBF, 155. Geisler says elsewhere, “Even John Calvin was not an extreme Calvinist on [the atonement], for he believed that by Christ’s death ‘all the sins of the world have been expiated.’ Commenting on the ‘many’ for whom Christ died in Mark 14:24, Calvin said, ‘The word many does not mean a part of the world only, but the whole human race.’ This means that people like Jonathan Edwards, John Gerstner, and R.C. Sproul, who believe in limited atonement, are more extreme than John Calvin! Hence, they have earned the title ‘extreme Calvinists” (CBF, 50).
[10] CBF 155. Kendall was the Senior Pastor at Westminster Chapel, London England from 1977 to 2002. He took over this pastorate from Dr. Martin Lloyd Jones. The book has scholarly popularity: Christianity Today called Kendall’s work on Calvin “an epoch-making book.” The back cover has an endorsement from J.I. Packer: “Dr. Kendall’s exciting study…is a major step forward in the reappraisal of Puritanism…no student in the Puritan field can excuse themselves from reckoning with this important contribution.”
[11] In the second edition of Chosen But Free, Dr. Geisler references those holding opposing views (Helm, Rainbow, Nicole), though no meaningful interaction with their research is offered. In the 2002 book Four Views on Eternal Security, Dr. Geisler reiterates his reliance on Kendall, and also refers to the Calvin research of Robert P. Lightner, [The Death Christ Died: A Case For Unlimited Atonement, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1998)], though no citations or research from Lightner is offered. Also included in Geisler’s bibliography for Chosen But Free, is mention of Brian Armstrong’s Calvin and the Amyraut Heresy, a book that would support Geisler’s conclusion on Calvin, yet Geisler includes no material from this book.
[12] Olson also includes
excerpts and one significant paragraph from Brian G. Armstrong’s Calvinism
and the Amyraut Heresy: Protestant Scholasticism and Humanism in
Seventeenth-Century France. In the quote, many one-sentence snippets from
Calvin are offered in support of unlimited atonement.
[13] Kendall says in his introduction, “Calvin’s doctrine of the atonement, however, is not the subject of this book. A definitive study on this is yet to be written. What follows is a study of the nature of saving faith in William Perkins and his followers against the context of what Calvin believed concerning faith” [R.T. Kendall, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649 (Waynesboro: Paternoster Press, 1997), 3].
[14] Beza was Calvin’s successor
in Geneva. The following biographical links are most helpful: http://www.rsglh.org/beza.htm; Phillip Schaff's
Description of Beza; Wikipedia
on Beza. Roger Nicole has pointed out, “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.” (John Calvin’s View of the Extent of the Atonement from the Westminster Theological
Journal 47:2, Fall 1985).
[15] Paul Helm, Calvin and the Calvinists (Pennsylvania: Banner of Truth, 1998) 10. Roger Nicole has likewise pointed out, “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 Westminster Assembly, were basically wrong concerning the major direction of their theology. To call the Westminster Assembly doctrine of faith “crypto-Arminian” 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!” (John Calvin’s View of the Extent of the Atonement from the Westminster Theological Journal 47:2, Fall 1985).
[16] Helm, 33.
[17] When evaluating Kendall,
Frederick S. Leahy has rightly said, “[Kendall] claims support from Calvin, but his theory is different from that of
Amyraut in that he holds that while Christ died equally for all. He intercedes
only for the elect: “The decree of election...is not rendered effectual in Christ's death but
in His ascension and intercession at the Father's right hand”[quote of
Kendall]. ' Calvinistic Universalists'
have argued that without the belief that Christ died equally for all, there can
be no assurance of salvation, for how can the sinner be sure that Christ died
for him? So Kendall insists that: “Had not Christ died for all, we could have no
assurance that our sins have been expiated in God's sight.” With this Charles Bell agrees, but rightly points out
that when Kendall makes Christ's intercession crucial in man's salvation he
"simply removes the problem of assurance from the area of Christ's
atonement to that of Christ's intercession." Indeed! And how can one be sure
that Christ intercedes for him? Both Kendall and Bell fail to show how
universal atonement could prove a sufficient ground for assurance, since both
agree that, on their respective positions, all covered by the Atonement will
not be saved!” [Frederick S. Leahy, “Calvin and the Extent of the Atonement,”
Reformed Theological Journal 8 (November 1992), 58]. Similarly, Roger Nicole has pointed
out, “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.” (John Calvin’s View of the Extent of the
Atonement from the Westminster Theological Journal 47:2, Fall 1985).
[18] Helm, 38.
[19]Kendall attributes to Calvin: “…[W]hile Christ died for all and is offered to all, ‘yet not all receive Him’, Calvin acknowledges. But there is an explanation for this: God’s eternal predestination. It is ‘plain that it comes to pass by God’s bidding’ that salvation comes to some ‘while others are barred from access to it’” (Kendall, 15).
[20] Kendall attributes to Calvin: “What the elect are given, then, is a ‘measure’ of faith out of Christ’s infinite bounty…When first even the least drop of faith is instilled in our minds, we begin to contemplate God’s face, peaceful and calm and gracious toward us” (Kendall, 18).
[21] Kendall says, “As for Calvin’s own Calvinism’, I would give him four-and-a-half points out of the traditional five. That’s fairly close, and those who come to this conviction surely ought to be included in the Reformed family” (Kendall, x).
[22] Dr. Geisler attempts to synthesize Kendall’s Calvin research on the atonement into a mediate theology perspective. He presents Kendall’s interpretation of Calvin on the atonement as the mediate position. Geisler comments, “While Calvin believed that the benefits of the Atonement are applied only to a limited group (those who believed), he held that the extent of the Atonement is unlimited. That is, Christ died for the sins of the whole human race” (CBF 155-156). This statement by Geisler is ambiguous. While it is true that Kendall’s interpretation of Calvin would agree with Geisler’s statement as far as it goes, it leaves out the fact that Kendall’s interpretation of Calvin still affirms that faith is a supernatural gift given by God only to the elect. Some are still chosen while other are not. In Geisler’s view, all men have the ability to believe prior to regeneration. Kendall’s view of Calvin would not agree. This is an example of mediate theology taking only those specific facts which concur with their theology, and leaving out what does not suit them.
[25] R.T. Kendall, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649, x. Kendall says elsewhere, “I believe that Jesus died for everybody without exception but that the blood he shed was applied to God’s elect only and made effectual as a consequence of Christ’s intercession at the Father’s right hand. Dr. Lloyd-Jones was fascinated by this concept but that is not to say he began preaching it himself. I regard myself as a four and a half point Calvinist” (http://www.rtkendallministries.com/).
[26] Michael Horton cited in J. Matthew Pinson, Four Views on Eternal Security, 113.
[27] Olson, 126.