Doctor Roger Nicole further sheds light on the issue of John Calvin's view of the extent of atonement by stating the following:

II. The following arguments may be advanced to support the contention that definite atonement more closely approximates Calvin’s view.

1. The strong structure of Calvin’s theology in terms of the divine purpose does appear to imply this specific reference. It seems difficult to imagine that Calvin would posit as the purpose of Christ an indefinite, hypothetical redemption, when at so many other points it is plainly apparent that the specific elective purpose of God is the controlling feature of his outlook.

2. Repeatedly Calvin asserts that God’s purpose of election is ultimate and that we cannot go behind it! To assume a hypothetical redemptive purpose more inclusive than the election of grace is doing precisely what he precludes. It is difficult to assume that Calvin would open himself to such self-contradiction.

Before the first man was created, God in His eternal counsel had determined what he willed to be done with the whole human race.

While we are elected in Christ, nevertheless God reckons us among his own prior in order to making us members of Christ.

3. Calvin makes it quite plain that he views repentance and faith and all other recreative benefits of salvation to have been merited for the elect by Christ. What Christ has accomplished on the cross is not so much to secure the salvability of all humans, as actually to accomplish the salvation of those whom he does redeem.

This point is made very apparent in the whole chapter 17 of Book 2 of the Institutes entitled, “Christ rightly and properly said to have merited God’s grace and salvation for us.” We may also refer to our note 98 where the relationship of repentance and faith to the saving work of Christ is articulated in Calvin’s spirit.

4. Calvin, as well as the Scripture itself, frequently conjoins in the same sentence certain benefits which accrue only to the elect, with references to the effects or intent of the death of Christ, e.g. “Christ, who died for our trespasses, and was raised for our justification” (Rom 4:25).

In this connection it is important to note that there is in Calvin a great prevalence of the use of “we” (and related forms) with respect to those who are viewed as elect and redeemed.

5. Calvin, following Scripture, conjoins closely the priestly work of Christ in his substitutionary death with this priestly work as intercessor.

First He offered the sacrifice of His body, and shed His blood, that He might bear the punishment due to us; and secondly, that the atonement might be powerful He performed the office of an advocate, and interceded for all who entered this sacrifice by faith.

Whenever the death and passion of our Lord Jesus-Christ is preached to us, we must at the same time add the prayer that he made.

Now Christ’s intercession is specifically stated to be particular (John 17:9), and so it is represented by Calvin. This undoubtedly is what has led R. G. Kendall to posit that Calvin assumed a different scope for the oblation and the intercession of Christ. But this position flies in the face of Calvin’s text, and has not received wide acceptance, even among scholars who believe that Calvin held to universal atonement. But if oblation and intercession are recognized to be coextensive, they will both be universal or both be particular. The clear-cut particularity of intercession becomes therefore a telling argument for the equal particularity of the atonement.

6. Calvin deals with texts which are usually associated with a universal saving intent in a way which shows that he was mindful at that very moment of the particular elective purpose of God. This is explicitly brought to the fore in the commentaries in Ezek 18:32; John 3:16; 2 Pet 3:9. In the commentaries and sermons on 1 Tim 2:4 and Titus 2:13 the word “all” is interpreted to refer to “all kinds or classes of men.” In relation to John 1:29 and 1 John 2:2 the word “world” is viewed as intending to transcend a nationalistic Jewish particularism. Similar interpretations are to be found in the Institutes and in the Treatise on Predestination.

Now we have never met an upholder of universal atonement who would favor such an interpretation. In fact we have never met one who would hesitate to use all these texts in support of his/her view. Surely if Calvin held to universal grace, he would not find it suitable, let alone necessary, to provide such explanations for these passages. In fact, the greater the confidence that such Scriptures do in fact teach universal grace, the stronger the evidence that Calvin did not hold this doctrine, since, according to this view, he would have been led to evade the clear meaning of the texts in order to conform to the demands of his system.

7. The embarrassment which some of Calvin’s universal expressions may cause the upholder of definite atonement may be alleviated by the consideration that Calvin meant to place special emphasis on the indiscriminate call of the gospel. It is certainly in this sense that Calvin himself interprets 2 Pet 3:9 and the same hermeneutic may apply to his own statements.

8. There are in Scripture as well as in Calvin passages where the particular intent of Christ’s death is stressed. Christ gave himself for his people (Matt 1:21), for his friends (John 15:13), for the sheep (John 10:15), for his church (Eph 5:23–26; Acts 20:28), for us (Titus 2:14). Calvin’s commentaries on these passages, as well as those on John 11:52 and Heb 2:9 reflect this particularity.

9. Calvin’s statement in response to Heshusius, dealing with the participation of unbelievers in the Lord’s Supper and quoted above, deserves special attention: “I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ which was not crucified for them, and how they can drink the blood which was not shed to expiate their sins.”

This appears to be a categorical denial of universal atonement. Bell and Daniel have tackled this statement and attempted to explain it as reflecting the viewpoint of unbelievers who were not acknowledging the relevance to them of Christ’s work rather than Calvin’s own position. But then the argument against Heshusius would be very weak, since it was precisely his contention that the unbelievers desecrated the Lord’s Supper by failing to discern the reality of Christ in, with, and under the natural species as well as the universal relevance of his atoning work. They manifested the latter form of unbelief by failing to appropriate this work in repentance and faith.

10. Calvin follows Scripture in the terms he commonly uses to describe the atoning work of Christ: “reconciliation,” “redemption,” “propitiation.” To these may be added the term “satisfaction,” not found per se in Scripture, but commonly used by theologians. All these terms connote an accomplishment that actually transforms the relationship between God and the sinner. What kind of reconciliation would be this, if estrangement continued and ultimately were to be sealed for eternity? What kind of propitiation would be this, if God continued to look upon the sinner as a child of wrath? What kind of redemption would be this, where the captives would remain in bondage after the ransom has been paid? What kind of satisfaction would be this, where God would not be satisfied but still enact punishment in the day of judgment? The language of Calvin does not fit a mere potential blessing which remains ineffective pending some performance by the sinner, which would then make it truly operative: it connotes a basic act of God, who then sees to it that it is implemented unto the salvation of all those he purposed to save.

11. Calvin functions clearly with the concept of penal substitution, that is to say Christ on the cross underwent the divine penalty which God would otherwise inflict on the sinner. Who does not see that if this is so, and if the atonement is universal, no one will be punished at the last judgment? But this is contrary to Scripture and to Calvin. It is difficult to imagine that Calvin failed to perceive the necessary link between substitution and definite atonement, or that, having perceived it, he carried on without giving regard to this matter!

12. Calvin’s strong trinitarian view would certainly lead him to recognize a unity of purpose between the three Persons of the Godhead: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But universal atonement introduces a fundamental disjunction between the universal intent of the Son who gave himself for all and the particular purpose of the Father who elected only some people, and of the Holy Spirit, who confers regeneration, faith, and repentance to the elect only. Here again it is difficult to imagine that Calvin would remain unaware of such a fatal flaw at the heart of his theology.

13. 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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We can therefore conclude that definite atonement fits better than universal grace into the total pattern of Calvin's teachings. However, one should not ultimately base his/her conclusion on someone else's. Therefore, The Case For Definite Atonement and The Case For Unlimited Atonement will have to be consulted.