Review of Roger Olson's Book

Was John Calvin a 5-Point Calvinist? Did he affirm Definite Atonement?

Olson has this footnote, “It should be noted that whether Calvin himself taught limited atonement is debateable”—that’s page 16.

I ended up opening Calvin’s Doctrine of the Atonement by Robert A. Peterson:

“The question of the extent of the atonement in Calvin has been hotly debated. Some insist that he taught a limited atonement, that Christ died only to save the elect. Others are equally insistent that Calvin held to an unlimited atonement, that Christ died for the sins of all. Frequently, overlooked and yet most important is the fact that the extent of the atonement was not an issue in Calvin’s time. The debate over limited or unlimited atonement belongs to the period of the Reformed orthodoxy. Hence the question of Calvin’s view of the extent of the atonement is anachronistic. It is unfair to ask for a man’s position on a matter that became an issue only after his death. Yes scholars persist in asking the question. What conclusion can be reached as to Calvin’s thought on the extent of the atonement as the doctrine was later taught? It is clear that Calvin denied universalism, the teaching that all would ultimately be saved. It is equally plain that Calvin held to a universal and free offer of the gospel. There is too little evidence in the Institutes to reach a conclusion on the extent of the atonement. The lack of evidence in the Institutes should make us cautious when using the commentaries and sermons to determine whether Calvin taught limited or unlimited atonement. In his preface to the reader in the 1559 Institutes Calvin gave his own methodological statement that one should interpret his commentaries doctrinally on the basis of the Institutes. Calvin’s commentaries contain some passages that favor limited atonement, but again the data is unsubstantial. James W. Anderson has marshaled evidence from Calvin’s sermons and has argued that he taught an unlimited atonement. The conclusion must be that it is uncertain what position Calvin would have taken if he were living at the same time of the debates over the extent of the atonement.”

Pp. 90-91, Peterson’s comments on this, found in his 1983 publication from Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.

I have of late committed myself to be a life-long learner of subjects and disciplines in all of life. OK. But I gulped when I first read the Olson footnote. I said, “Mr. Olson, Aw….that can’t be right, surely Calvin was a 5 Point Calvinist.” I then did a quick drive over to a number of blogs on the internet and skimmed other Calvin Studies sites. I was amazed to read of the varying positions on Calvin’s view of the extent of Christ’s death. I was unprepared for that. I remember selling a book by RT Kendall and then another called Calvin and Calvinists by Paul Helm. Men would come into the book store and want these titles. I knew some sort of controversy of an interpretative nature about Calvin’s Calvinism was brewing. But I was ignorant about it.


Here’s Paul Helm on Calvin’s view the extent of Christ’s atoning work—For whom did Jesus die?

“Helm writes: Calvin, not being a Universalist, could be said to be committed to definite atonement, even though he does not commit himself to definite atonement. And, it could be added, there is a sound reason for this. There was no occasion for Calvin to enter into argument about the matter, for before the Arminian controversy the extent of the atonement had not been debated expressly within the Reformed churches.

However, plausible though such a line of argument may seem, it is possible to show that Calvin did not leave others to draw such conclusions. He drew them himself. There are passages in Calvin which show that he held the doctrine of limited atonement, even though the doctrine does not gain the prominence in his writings that it did during later controversies.

(c) For whom did Christ intend to die? When discussing the fact that Christ is both Judge and Redeemer Calvin says:

Hence arises a wonderful consolation: that we perceive judgment to be in the hands of him who has already destined us to share with him the honour of judging (cf. Matt. 19:28)! Far indeed is he from mounting his judgment seat to condemn us! How could our most merciful Ruler destroy his people? How could the Head scatter his own members? How could our Advocate condemn his clients? . Therefore, by giving all judgment to the Son (John 5:22), the Father has honoured him to the end that he may care for the consciences of his people, who tremble in dread of judgment.

Again,

For there is nothing absurd in ascribing to the Father praise for those gifts of which he is the Author, and yet in ascribing the same powers to Christ, with whom were laid up the gifts of the Spirit to bestow upon his people . . . In this sense he is called the ‘Second Adam’, given from heaven as ‘a life-giving spirit’ (I Cor. 15:45). This unique life which the Son of God inspires in his own so that they become one with him, Paul here contrasts with that natural life which is common also to the wicked.

Calvin shows that he is quite at home with the thought that Christ has ‘his people’ over whom he rules and to whom he gives life. How can this be? It is not only because they have chosen to be his, as we have already seen. They are elected to salvation. Rather, as Calvin hints, Christ cares for those whom the Father has given him, his people, by being their Redeemer. Not simply by being a Redeemer, but by being their Redeemer.

As Christ teaches, here is our only ground for firmness and confidence: in order to free us of all fear and render us victorious amid so many dangers, snares, and mortal struggles, he promises that whatever the Father has entrusted into his keeping will be safe (John 10:28-9).16

And who are these? They are the sheep to whom the Shepherd gives eternal life.”

These three quotes are from Calvin’s Institutes, as conveyed by Helm’s citations.

There’s something more to store away about John Calvin.

G. Mark Sumpter