Sufficient for All? Does God Wish for the Reprobate to be Saved? John Calvin Answers Georgius
John Calvin
rejects the use of the common phrase “Sufficient for all, Efficient for the
elect”, especially in interpreting 1 John 2:2. That phrase is
commonly understood as Christ dying for everyone without exception including the reprobates in a certain sense, but in another sense the efficacy of, or the final benefit of the atonement is for the elect alone. If the phrase means that God has the power (sufficient for all) to save everyone without exception (universalism) hypothetically if He wants to, I have no objection but apparently this is not what many moderate Calvinists understand of the phrase. I
concur with Jim Ellis who concludes: “To say that Christ's death on the cross
provided an atonement sufficient for all is to specifically suggest that He has
atoned for the sins of all men, which is essentially a universal atonement. This
is a false conception and makes us, along with those who hold to a universal
atonement, say the opposite of what we mean.” He, quoting J. I. Packer: “We
want (rightly) to proclaim Christ as Savior; yet we end up saying that Christ,
having made salvation possible, has left us to become our own saviors. It comes
about this way. We want to magnify the saving grace of God and the saving power
of Christ. So we declare that God's redeeming love extends to every man, and
that Christ has died to save every man, and we proclaim that the glory of
divine mercy is to be measured by these facts. And then, in order to avoid
universalism, we have to depreciate all that we were previously extolling, and
to explain that, after all, nothing that God and Christ have done can save us
unless we add something to it; the decisive factor which actually saves us is
our own believing. What we say comes to this -- that Christ saves us with our
help; and what that means is this -- that we save ourselves with Christ's help.
This is a hollow anticlimax. But if we start by affirming that God has a saving
love for all, and Christ died a saving death [sufficient] for all, and yet balk
at becoming universalists, there is nothing else that we can say. And let us be
clear on what we have done when we put the matter in this fashion. We have not
exalted grace and the cross; we have cheapened them. We have limited the
atonement far more drastically than [consistent] Calvinism does, for whereas
Calvinism asserts Christ's death saves all whom it was meant to save, we have
denied that Christ's death, as such, is sufficient to save any of them.”[1]
The
moderate Calvinists also believe that God wishes or desires for the reprobate
to be saved though God is pleased to have preordained the damnation of some men.
They do not see that they are two conflicting, contradicting double will of
God. Calvin denies it because such thought implies frustration in God’s will.
The following excerpt is taken from Calvin’s Calvinism: The Eternal Predestination of God and
the Secret Providence of God, authored by John Calvin, translated by Henry
Cole. [Brackets] mine. Softcopy can be found in the link https://www.monergism.com/calvins-calvinism
Georgius imagines himself to argue very cleverly
when he says, "Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world.
Therefore, those who would exclude the reprobate from a participation in the
benefits of Christ, must, of necessity, place them somewhere out of the
world." Now we will not permit the common solution of this question to
avail on the present occasion, which would have it that Christ suffered
sufficiently for all men, but effectually for His elect alone. This great
absurdity, by which our monk [Georgius] has procured for himself so much
applause amongst his own fraternity, has no weight whatever with me. John does indeed
extend the benefits of the atonement of Christ, which was completed by His
death, to all the elect of God throughout what climes of the world soever they
may be scattered [i.e., sufficient only for the elect]. But though the case
be so, it by no means alters the fact that the reprobate are mingled with the
elect in the world. It is also a fact, without controversy, that Christ came
to atone for the sins "of the whole world." But the solution of all
difficulty is immediately at hand, in the truth and fact, that it is
"whosoever believeth in Him" that "shall not perish, but shall
have eternal life." For our present question is, not what the power or
virtue of Christ is, nor what efficacy it has in itself, but who those are
to whom He gives Himself to be enjoyed. Now if the possession of Christ
stands in faith, and if faith flows from the Spirit of adoption, it follows
that he alone is numbered of God among His children who is designed of God to
be a partaker of Christ. Indeed, the evangelist John sets forth the office of
Christ to be none other than that of "gathering together all the children
of God" in one by His death. From all which we conclude that although
reconciliation is offered [presented] unto all men through Him, yet, that the
great benefit belongs peculiarly to the elect, that they might be
"gathered together" and be made "together" partakers of
eternal life.
Be it observed, however, that when I speak of reconciliation through Christ being offered [presented] to all, I do not mean that that message or embassy, by which Paul says God "reconciles the world unto Himself," really comes or reaches unto all men; but that it is not sealed indiscriminately on the hearts of all those to whom it does come, so as to be effectual in them. And as to our present opponent's prating about there being "no acceptance of persons with God," he must first "go and learn" what the word "person" meaneth agreeably to our preceding explanations of it; and then we shall have no more trouble with him on that score.
"But Paul teaches us (continues Georgius) that God 'would have [desire or wish for] all men to be saved.'" It follows, therefore, according to his understanding of that passage, either that God is disappointed in His wishes, or that all men without exception must be saved. If he should reply that God wills all men to be saved on His part, or as far as he is concerned, seeing that salvation is, nevertheless, left to the free will of each individual; I, in return, ask him why, if such be the case, God did not command the Gospel [i.e., God did not cause the Gospel] to be preached to all men indiscriminately from the beginning of the world? why He suffered so many generations of men to wander for so many ages in all the darkness of death? Now it follows, in the apostle's context, that God "would have all men come to the knowledge of the truth." But the sense of the whole passage is perfectly plain, and contains no ambiguity to any reader of candour and of a sound judgment. We have fully explained the whole passage in former pages. The apostle had just before exhorted that solemn and general prayers should be offered up in the Church "for kings and princes," etc., that no one might have cause to deplore those kings and magistrates whom God might be pleased to set over them; because, at that time, rulers were the most violent enemies of the faith. Paul, therefore, makes Divine provision for this state of things by the prayers of the Church, and by affirming that the grace of Christ could reach to this order of men also, even to kings, princes and rulers of every description.
Comments
Post a Comment