The Potter's Freedom Part 3

I want to introduce to you our in-studio guest today, Pastor Jeff Neal. Pastor Neal is the pastor of Emmanuel Covenant Church. I'm looking at their brochure right now, a very well-done brochure. Emmanuel Covenant Church, standing in a distinctive Reformed and Protestant tradition, recognizes the Westminster Confession of Faith as a doctrinal statement.

Our ultimate authority, however, is the Word of God, to which all matters, including creeds and confessions, must be subject. Welcome to the Dividing Line today, Jeff.

It's good to be here, Rich.

All right. And listening in, James, where are you?

I'm sitting here with the windows open, and it's about 67 degrees and breezy, and I'm in, actually, Mill Valley, California, on the campus of the Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary. I'm teaching a...

They call this an intensive summer course, and they decided this year to make it as intensive as it could be. It's only four days, eight hours a day, so Thursday and Friday, I was teaching from 8 a .m. to 5 p .m., and I really cannot vouch for the orthodoxy of anything I've said past 3 o 'clock in the afternoon.

I really can't.

But we're up here teaching a class on Christian philosophy, really. It's a Christian apologetics course, in essence. We, yesterday, for example, listened to the classic Bonson-Stein debate on the existence of God, and took that apart.

And so, I'm up here over the weekend trying to get some work done.

James, when you say you took that apart, which side did you come down on, the theist or the.

Atheist side?

Well, you know, we took it apart in the sense of trying to figure out what it must have been like to be. Gordon Stein, so they're going, what is this guy talking about?

Right.

Because you could tell that Dr. Stein had not run into the transcendental argument for the existence of God before, but anyhow, it's been useful, I think, to the students. They seem to have enjoyed it so far, and they keep asking me to come back each year, so I enjoy my time up here.

Of course, last year, I moved during the two weeks I was up here, and the weekend between, and then flooded the house out. So, it's a little less stressful this time around to be up here. But, we've been looking at a book that I happen to have sitting here in my little studio apartment up here, by Dr. Norman Geisler, entitled, Chosen but Free, A Balanced View of Divine Election, and when I first started reviewing this, I gave Jeff a call and said, man, I think you might want to know something about this book and about what is being said, and part of the reason was that back when Jeff and I both had more hair than we do now, in fact, I suppose I should just say that Jeff was the man that everyone in first-year Greek, when I took it, looked up to, because he was in second-year Greek, and that meant that he knew all things, and so we ran over to Breean Christian Bookstore all the time where he worked to ask him questions about Greek that we didn't understand, and we didn't want to fail Dr. Barrett's Greek class, and we figured he knew all the answers.

So, that's how Jeff and I got to know each other, and a couple years later, he disappeared and went off up to the northern part of the United States, northwestern part, and lo and behold, while we were both separated from one another, we both came to the same conclusions about certain theological subjects, namely the validity of the Reformed view of salvation, and we got back together again, lo and behold, we had that in common as well, so I knew that he'd be interested in the book, but more so than that, Jeff and I also went to Fuller Theological Seminary together, please don't hold that against us at all, and in the process, I saw some work that Jeff did on the subject of Calvin and his view of the Atonement, and as I was reading Dr. Geisler's book, I was again struck with the fact that that is a subject that needs to be addressed, because of the fact that Dr. Geisler, as I have mentioned over the past couple of weeks, redefines this entire debate in this book, and what I mean by that is Dr. Geisler calls himself a moderate Calvinist, and identifies R .C. Sproul and John Gerstner and Jonathan Edwards and Charles Haddon Spurgeon and so on, extreme Calvinists, even though, when you boil everything down, Dr. Geisler is in fact a moderate Arminian, an Arminian who believes in eternal security, in essence, and so now we have the moderate Arminians are actually the moderate Calvinists, and the actual Calvinists are now extreme Calvinists, and the whole basis for Dr. Geisler's assertion that myself and Pastor Neal would be considered extreme Calvinists is because of his assertion that John Calvin did not believe in, particularly to use the term he uses, limited Atonement, and let me read from page 160 of the book so we can see exactly what we're saying, whatever else Calvin may have said, to encourage extreme Calvinism's tulip, he certainly, and that's his word, not mine, he certainly denied limited Atonement as they understand it.

For Calvin, the Atonement is universal in extent and limited only in its application, namely to those who believe, and so on the basis of that assertion, and saying that an R .C. Sproul or a John Gerstner or myself, if we believe in particular redemption, if we believe that Christ died savingly in behalf of his elect people, then that makes us extreme Calvinists, and this is the basis upon which Dr. Gerstner comes up with this new nomenclature, shall we say.

It's really interesting, James,.

That even on page 55 of that same book, Mr. Geisler wrote, an extreme Calvinist, and this is somewhat of an odd statement, an extreme Calvinist is someone who is more Calvinistic than John Calvin. Now that's very much like that funny but false statement that Mick Jagger looks more like a fish than a fish.

I mean, that's not true necessarily, but the point comes across, but it is an odd statement, John, somebody being more Calvinistic than Calvin himself.

John Calvin, right.

Well, obviously the assertion is that there has been some sort of a development since the time of John Calvin that the foundation he laid, we've gone beyond that. Now, first and foremost, obviously, and you and I have talked about this, Jeff, one of the reasons I want to address this is because I want to clarify this issue and I want to demonstrate that the use of the term certainly by Dr. Geisler is simply unwarranted, but more importantly than that, I want the listener to understand that for both you and I, and I think for any person who has read more than five words of Calvin's writings, what John Calvin believed on anything, and I think John Calvin would say this with his own part, what John Calvin said on anything is unimportant unless what he said is in harmony and in line with the Word of God.

That's exactly right, James. The ultimate issue, the ultimate authority for believers is Scripture, not Calvin, and it is remarkable that this whole debate came to my attention while I was at Fuller Theological Seminary by a professor who told me he's invited to speak at the various annual Calvin seminars.

Now, that's an odd thing, too. Some Christians look at this and say, wow, why would you spend so much time reading Calvin? What's the big deal? Admittedly, the authority of Scripture is primary. However, this professor said that he's invited all the time to these Calvin annual conferences, and he speaks, and the majority of scholars today are convinced that Calvin never taught a limited atonement, and the Calvinists that follow him, they made that up, and that's a fancy on their part.

Now, I'm going to admit here that this is odd also, because anybody thinking about this would say, wow, there's actually an annual conference, or every other year there's a conference where people get together and study Calvin.

That's kind of, it sounds governmental, because the government is always applying, you know, studies to study things that have been studied, so it is a little bit odd, but James, I really appreciate you saying that the ultimate authority here is Scripture, and inasmuch as Calvin reflects Scripture, becomes a doorman to us to open up the door so that we may understand Scripture.

In that, we want to hear Calvin and what he has to say. However, Geisler has set the foul lines. He has set the boundaries, stating that Calvin never taught these things, and if you're teaching these things and attempting to claim Calvin's support, you're not only way off, you're whacked and way off.

Well, there's something strange, I think, really, in wanting to claim the name. I mean, when we look back over Church history, you look at Augustine, when you look at the high water marks, who are the individuals who had the greatest impact on the teaching and preaching of the Church after them?

Obviously, Augustine is first and foremost, but then when you ask, does anyone else approach that level, does anyone else approach that kind of impact, one of the few other names that can possibly be suggested is John Calvin, and most people would admit, just simply on a historical level, that the Institutes of the Christian Religion and the form of Church government and Church theology that was established in Geneva probably had the greatest impact of any of the Reformers on Western Christianity, specifically Protestant Christianity, obviously, and in fact, I would argue, even in a negative form, in the sense that the Jesuits recognized that the strongest challenge to their position was not Lutheranism that followed Melanchthon, but Calvinism that followed John Calvin.

That's where Melina comes in, and the Molinism, and Middle Knowledge, and all the rest of that stuff, specifically designed to try to find a way around the emphasis upon the sovereignty of God in John Calvin.

So, just simply from that perspective, at least we can understand why someone might want to call themselves a Calvinist, but if we're going to be honest as Christians, if you're going to use that terminology, there needs to be some consistency in regards to what Calvin taught.

On the issues that you claim to be in harmony with. That's right. You know, James, I have found, as I've been involved with this discussion over the, oh, decade, the last decade plus, that there seems to be two approaches to this.

There's the one that we're familiar with and discussing today, that is, Norman Geisler's position that Calvinism today is not what Calvin taught, but there is another one that's intimately related to what you just mentioned, and that is the whole discussion of the extent of the atonement, the whole question of double predestination, the whole question of specificity in God's plan of redemption is an anachronism, is something that didn't apply to Calvin's time.

And you've mentioned Augustine, and James, I know that you've taught church history before. You're very familiar with Gottschalk as well, who was, matter of fact, condemned for such statements as this, Christ died only for the elect.

And beaten, in fact. Matter of fact, publicly beaten and sentenced to life in prison,.

So I'm thankful. Aren't we glad we can talk about these things? I mean, we may have a few people treat us that way theologically, but at least they don't get to do it physically. That's right.

So anyway, Gottschalk is a loud voice in the panorama of church history that speaks on this, but you're also aware of the scholastics, the schoolmen, those famous for studying everything under the sun, they were the ones to whom Calvin referred to as saying, referring to 1 John 2, 1 and 2, the schoolmen, the scholastics are the ones that say Christ died sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently for the elect.

Now, Calvin says that that's not applicable, the 1 John 2, 1 and 2, but Calvin's aware that the schoolmen were aware of the issue. But shockingly, a contemporary of John Calvin was actually more specific than Calvin himself, and this may shock many people, and even, well, this I will present much to the chagrin of many a Lutheran today, but Martin Luther, in his lectures on Romans and Luther's works, commenting on Romans 8 .28, made the most specific statement of the day regarding the specificity of those for whom Christ died, and I'll quote, I'm picking up mid-quote here, for in an absolute sense, Christ did not die for all, because he says, this is my blood which is poured out for you and for many, he does not say for all, for the forgiveness of sins.

Luther said, for in an absolute sense, Christ did not die for all. So when somebody says that the whole issue is anachronistic, the whole issue wasn't even a matter of discussion in Calvin's day, what they've done is they've shown their lack of familiarity with Church history, and they've, in a sense, insulted Calvin, who was a master of understanding the Fathers in Church history.

And certainly, if it was Calvin's intention to assert a universal atonement in the way that Dr. Geisler presents it, or others do, he had many an opportunity to do so in specific contexts, and yet when you go to the Scripture passages that are universally used by those who want to present a universal atonement, in each place Calvin very specifically limits the work of Christ to the elect.

But I think before we go that direction, and Rich, I am watching the clock there, I'm sure you'll try to be sensitive to when we're coming up to our break, there are a lot of folks that may not really understand exactly what we're talking about as far as what we're talking about.

Particular redemption, unlimited atonement, limited atonement. I wanted to take just a few moments here, sort of before we continue with Calvin and his particular position, to help people understand what we're talking about.

And I brought with me some reading material to keep myself busy here over the weekend, and I'm not sure if you've picked it up yet, Jeff, but there is an excellent new systematic theology out by Robert Raymond.

No, I have not. And Dr. Raymond, in fact, Pastor Fry at the Phoenix Reformed studied under Dr. Raymond, and I've been reading through it, it's an excellent work. And there's a section here, it's specifically under the section on decrees, it's not even the section on what Dr. Raymond calls the crosswork of Christ, but he has just mentioned, and I found this rather fascinating, a citation from the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology by Arminian theologian J. Kenneth Greider, who in speaking about Arminianism says this, notice the term spillover, from Calvinism into Arminianism has occurred in recent decades.

Thus many Arminians, whose theology is not very precise, say that Christ paid the penalty for our sins, yet such a view is foreign to Arminianism. That is, the concept of substitutionary atonement is, as this Arminian theologian recognizes, a spillover from Calvinism into Arminianism.

The Arminian view of the atonement is the governmental theory, not the substitutionary theory. And yet, most Arminians today speak of Christ taking our place, but have not thought through what exactly that means.

I'd like to, if I could, for just a few moments here, read what Dr. Raymond says so people will understand exactly what the issues are in regards to these two viewpoints and why this is so very, very important.

When it urges that the Bible teaches that both by divine decree and in history, Christ's death, represented by it as unrestricted regarding its reference, was intended to save all men without exception, that is the doctrine of unlimited atonement, Amaraldianism, which is what we would call four-point Calvinism, must necessarily join forces with Arminian Universalism, which, as we have seen, shares this aspect of its vision, and turn away altogether from a real substitutionary atonement, quote, which is as precious to the Calvinist as is his particularism, and for the safeguard of which, indeed, much of his zeal for particularism is due, end quote.

That's a quote from B .B. Warfield. But this is to wound Christianity as the redemptive religion of God fatally at its heart, for unless one is prepared to affirm the final universal salvation of all men, one cannot have an atonement of infinite intrinsic saving value and at the same time an atonement of universal extension.

One can have one or the other, but not both. You see, if Christ, by his death, actually propitiated God's wrath, reconciled God, and paid the penalty for sin, which is what I mean by an atonement of infinite intrinsic value, and if he sacrificially substituted himself for, on behalf of, for the sake of, and in the stead and place of sinners, then it follows that for all those for whom he substitutionally did his cross work, he did all that was necessary to procure their salvation and thus guarantee that they will be saved.

But since neither scripture, history, nor Christian experience will tolerate the conclusion that all men have become, are becoming, or shall become Christians, we must conclude that Christ did not savingly die for all men, but for some men only, even God's elect.

If, on the other hand, Christ did his work for all men without exception, and if he did not intend its benefits for any one man in any sense that he did not intend it for any and every other man distributively, since again neither scripture, history, nor Christian experience will allow the conclusion that all men are saved, it necessarily follows that Christ actually died neither savingly nor substitutionarily for any man, since he did not do so for those who are saved anything that he did not do for those who are lost.

And the one thing that he did not do for the lost was save them. It also follows necessarily since Christ by his death actually procured nothing that guarantees the salvation of any man, and yet some men are saved, that the most one can claim for his work, and this is very important, is that he in some way made all men salvable.

And that is the exact term, by the way, breaking from the quotation that Dr. Geisler uses in his book, that Christ's death makes us savable, but does not actually save. Very important issue. Picking up the quotation again.

But the highest view of the atonement that one can reach by this path is the governmental view. This view holds that Christ by his death actually paid the penalty for no man's sin. What his death did was to demonstrate that their sin deserves to, at the hand of the just governor and judge of the universe, and permit God justly to forgive men if on other grounds, such as their faith, their repentance, their works, and their perseverance, they meet his demands.

And I break the quotation again just to emphasize that in Chosen but Free, Dr. Geisler even includes appendices to nail home his point that both faith and repentance are not gifts from God, but are within the capacity of every man.

It is our faith, our repentance, so on and so forth. Just a little bit of the quotation left. This means, of course, that the actual salvation of those who are saved is ultimately rooted in and hangs decisively upon something other than the work of him who alone is able to save men, namely, in something that those who are saved do themselves in their own behalf.

But this is just to eviscerate the Savior's crosswork of all of its intrinsic saving worth, and to replace the Christocentric view of Scripture with the autosatiric vision of Pelagianism. End quote. Pages 478 and 479.

I couldn't say it any better, which is why I let some viewpoints side by side, and really this issue directly goes back to whether God is the one who saves and does so perfectly, or whether God is the one who makes salvation possible, but leaves it up to the creature man to determine whether he will or will not be saved.

It's interesting, James, because Galatians 3 .13 is a good passage to look at. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us. For it is written, cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.

Clearly, the substitutionary view is present in the text of Galatians 3 .13. First of all, there's something that's very actual here. The text says Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law. There's not Christ provided redemption.

Or made us redeemable.

Right. He made us savable, made us likable. It says that Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law. How did he do this? By being in the place of those he came to save, by becoming a curse for.

Us. And if he has taken the penalty of that curse in our place, then the big question that constantly has to be asked is, if I, by my quote-unquote free will, do not accept this gift, upon what basis can I then be judged by God?

If Christ has substitutionarily taken my place and borne in his body upon the tree the penalty due to all of my sin, not just some, but all of my sin, then upon what basis can God then justly condemn me?

This is an issue, again, that I don't find very many people who address the issue of limited atonement and reject it out of hand. I don't find many people who have actually thought that through and come to a meaningful conclusion in regards to that particular issue.

Most of the rejection, I think, and this is probably your experience as well, Jeff, most of the rejection that I encounter in regards to this is due to unfamiliarity and tradition, not due to a sat down, a thought through these things, a wrestle.

Through these things, and come to the opposite conclusion. That's right, and actually it begins, the consistency of scripture, it begins to thunder, it begins to scream, and by the way, that's a knock that so-called extreme Calvinists, according to Geisler, have received over the years, and that is, oh, your system is logical.

Okay, that, right, and the sin in that is, I'm not sure about that, but that's been one of the charges leveled against Calvinism, that once you begin to see this, once you determine that God is sovereign over everything, and that he has determined the election of those whom he has determined to save, and that he has applied Christ to them, that the Spirit of God has applied the work of Christ to them, you see that consistency throughout scripture, then they stand back and say, oh, well, you're just being logical,.

You're just being consistent. Very, very, I don't think that God is illogical or irrational, in fact, I think when we think rationally and logically, we're thinking God's thoughts after him. That is the important issue to be addressed there.

Now, in Chosen but Free, there is a section, actually there's a number of chapters called Avoiding Extreme Calvinism, and it's very interesting, beginning on page 74, Avoiding Extreme Calvinism's View of Limited Atonement.

The very first section presenting Calvinistic verses in support of the doctrine is based on Matthew 121. This text affirms that she, the Virgin Mary, will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.

Along with this are several other verses used to imply that Jesus only died for believers, and then he lists these. Here to love has no one than this, and he laid down his life for his friends, John 15, 13.

I laid down my life for the sheep, John 10, 15. He shepherds the church of God, which he bought with his own blood, Acts 20, 28. Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, Ephesians 5, 25. He gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good, Titus 2, 14.

And he who did not spare his own son but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies, Romans 8, 32 -33.

Now, these are, in my opinion, some of the most important verses that present this truth, especially Romans 8, because of the direct connection there, not only between God's sovereign purpose and the elect, but also in Christ's intercession for his people.

The response to this entire listing of verses, the first is one sentence, the second is two, the entire thing could be read in a matter of moments here, and we're almost out of time before the break, but specifically, to put it in, this is the concluding paragraph.

Finally, the Testament plainly states that God does love all and that Christ did die for all, John 3, 16 is quoted, 1 John 2, 2 is quoted, and then 1 Timothy 2, 4 is quoted, and that is the entire substantival response to the presentation of these passages.

So, it is difficult for us to spend much time refuting Dr. Geisler's argumentation on limited atonement, since we are offered almost no meaningful interaction with the specific ways in which the Reformed people have emphasized why we believe in a limited atonement and why it is so consistent with God's decree.

So, when we come back from the break, Jeff, I'd like to talk about a couple things. One of the things is, and this is never mentioned in the book, and that is the relationship between Christ's atoning work on the cross and his intercessory work, and the fact that John Calvin very clearly taught that the intercessory work and the atoning work of Christ were very much connected with one another, very important parts of Christ, prophet, priest, and king, so on and so forth, and hopefully look at some of those scripture passages a little more in depth and see exactly how these things all fit together.

And after the break, we're going to be.

Taking phone calls, and welcome back to The Dividing Line. We've got a special treat for you today. We are talking with James White. Dr. White is in San Francisco, or Mill Valley, California, as it were, enjoying the beautiful weather over there, teaching at Golden Gate Theological Seminary, and in studio with me.

Here is Pastor Jeff Neal of Emanuel Covenant Church. And just pass it right back off to you, James, to pick up where you gentlemen left off.

Well, you know, I was looking at a quotation from Jonathan Rainbow, where he says, quote, the evidence that Calvin was a limited redemptionist is far more extensive than the few quotations offered by writers like Murray and Helm would indicate.

There is a wealth of explicit and unambiguous statements in Calvin to the effect that Christ died only for the elect. I think from talking with you, Jeff, you would tend to agree with Rainbow's conclusion.

Overwhelmingly. It's.

Remarkable when an author, a scholar, a theologian comes forward and says that, well, it's clear that Calvin never taught any limitation of God's electing grace, any limitation of the work of Christ to the elect.

It's just remarkable that when one does go ahead and read Calvin, one, first of all, Calvin's very readable. He's very easy to read. But secondly, the passages are so numerous. What I thought maybe I could do, James, is offer somewhat of a guide to cutting through the brush of Calvin to show how people may, by referencing Calvin, see these constant passages about the limited intention and extent of the atonement.

And the first thing people could look at is Calvin's systematic approach to theology. When he took a look at a topic, be it the sacraments or the ordinances of the church, or when he looked at the Trinity, the unity of the Godhead, or even the nature of faith as a gift from God, you find throughout passages that indicate that Christ's atonement was particular.

But you could also take a look at just some specific passages where Calvin makes some comments to that regard, and I'd be happy to quote some of those. Yes, please. As a matter of fact, let me give you a couple of them here.

Many people are familiar with Jesus's high priestly prayer, the true Lord's prayer, in John chapter 17, where so often people who hold to a limited atonement will go to verse 9, where it says that Christ himself says, I am not praying for the whole world, but only for those you've given me.

When Calvin introduces the high priestly prayer, John 17, 1 and 2, his comments on those passages, it's remarkable to see how specific Calvin is. Listen to this statement. This is Calvin's comments on John 17, 2.

Jesus asks nothing but what is agreeable to the will of the Father. Once again, there's no competition in the Godhead. The son doesn't argue with the father, the father doesn't say, now here son, I want you to do this and you need to do it.

It's not like that at all. Calvin goes on, Christ does not say that he has been made governor over the whole world in order to bestow life on all without distinction, but he limits this grace to those who have been given him.

Very clearly. Here's another passage in the Institutes, that the whole world does not belong to its creator except that grace rescues from God's curse and wrath and eternal death a limited number who would otherwise perish.

Here's another passage out of the Institutes. This we must believe, and this is Calvin's comments on Jesus's words in John 13, 18 when Jesus said, I know whom I have chosen. Calvin wrote, this we must believe.

When he declares that he knows whom he has chosen, he denotes in the human genus a particular species distinguished not by the quality of its virtues, but by heavenly decree. It's not remarkable then when you come across the passage in Book 3 of the Institutes, chapter 22, Calvin says this, hence it is clear that the doctrine of salvation is falsely debased when presented as effectually.

Profitable to all. That's pretty clear, isn't it James? Well, it is very clear, and specifically in regards to the issue of his blood that you and I have both read in the Westminster Theological Journal.

Anyone who wants to look it up, it's in volume 47, number 2, fall 1985. This is by around the subject of John Calvin's view of the extent of the atonement. Nicole would agree with you and I that Calvin's view is that of a particular redemption.

He presents a number of citations. What are some of the most famous in your perspective, the clearest in regards to the specificity of redemption, the shedding of Christ's blood? Well, this was one that actually.

Jumped off the page during my time of interaction with this in seminary, and it's regarding the or Calvin would actually engage the Eucharistic debate of his day. It was a lifetime engagement for Calvin.

Matter of fact, he has written so much on this topic, it could blur the eyes if somebody was to sit down and say, I'm going to spend this month reading it. It's amazing. First of all, for Calvin, the Lord's Supper was a badge of belonging.

Calvin would have known the classical Latin term sacramentum, which meant a badge or an oath. For somebody to be involved in the sacraments for Calvin was to belong to Jesus Christ, to have an interest in his covenant.

So the Lord's Supper, baptism would be a badge of belonging for Calvin. It's interesting that Calvin even states this in a short treatise on the Lord's Supper. The Lord's, excuse me, the supper is an attestation that having been made partakers of the death and passion of Jesus Christ.

So there's something in the supper, we're referring to the Eucharist here, we're referring to the Lord's Supper. It's a participation in the death and passion of Jesus Christ. This is why when Calvin debates the Lutheran, Tylem and Hesusius, by the way, Hesusius did believe in an unlimited atonement.

Hesusius as a Lutheran would have held that just by merely partaking of the elements of the bread and the wine, you all of a sudden got this wonderful, saving, forgiving benefit. Well, Calvin was debating that, and he asks this question of Hesusius, and this is the kicker.

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.

That's Theological Treatises 285, and I think what's fascinating is that that citation is found on page 160 of Dr. Geisler's book, immediately above the assertion that he certainly denied limited atonement, and the only comment that is made is the introductory subtitle which says, Christ's blood received in communion is not for unbelievers.

Well, that's amazing, because if one was to read the entirety of Calvin's position on the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, Calvin does not deny that unbelievers do partake. He denies the efficacy, the benefit, what the Westminster Confession of Faith would call the means of grace, the grace that's conveyed through God's ordained means.

Calvin says, yeah, unbelievers partake of it. It doesn't make them saved, it doesn't put them in a more blessed position. He says that the sacrament is beneficial when it's joined with faith, therefore it's beneficial for believers, and that's of course the work of God.

On the immediately preceding page,.

It amazed me, and when I started looking through this, I pulled my commentary on 1 John 2 .2, Calvin's commentary, down, and I turned to 1 John 2 .2, and on page 159 of Chosen But Free, Calvin's comments are provided on 1 John 2 .2.

However, at the end, the comment that is given is, note, Calvin clearly denies universalism, and affirms the sufficiency of Christ's death for the whole world, even though he denies this particular passage can be used to teach this.

Now, when you go back, Dr. Geisler has put in italics. What he wants you to see is emphasized, and the one point that is most important isn't put in italics. Let me just read this to you, and I'll tell you what's in italics.

I'll say italics start, italics end, so you can see what's here. 1 John 2 .2, he says, he put this in for amplification, that believers might be convinced that, italics begin, the expiation made by Christ extends to all who by faith embrace the gospel, italics end.

But here the question may be asked as to, italics, how the sins of the whole world have been expiated, italics end. I pass over the dreams of the fanatics who make this a reason to extend salvation to all the reprobate, and even to Satan himself.

Such a monstrous idea is not worth refuting. Those who want to avoid this absurdity have said that, italics begin, Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but effectively only for the elect, italics close.

This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools, and I break from the quotations to note that that's what you mentioned earlier, Jeff, that he was well aware of. Although, I deny that it fits this passage, no italics.

For John's purpose was only to make this blessing common to the whole church. Therefore, under the word, all, he does not include the reprobate, no italics here, anywhere, but refers to all who would believe and those who were scattered through various regions of the earth.

For as is meet, the grace of Christ is really made clear when it is declared to be the only salvation of the world. So Calvin's point is very clear. It is almost unmistakable, and yet, when Dr. Geisser comments on this at the end, he simply says, Calvin clearly denies universalism and affirms the sufficiency of Christ's death to the whole world.

That was actually what the schoolmen were saying, even though he denies this particular passage can be used to teach this. What he denied the particular passage could be used to teach was the distinction the schoolmen made.

He himself says that John is not including the reprobate in this statement, and yet, throughout the book, he will quote 1 John 2 as if it preaches an unlimited atonement, and then say this about Calvin's citation.

It's an amazing use of material.

From Calvin that just blew me away when I first read it. That's amazing. We're getting close to a John 2 passage. Calvin mentions the reprobate, right? Throughout Calvin's theology, and I know this is hair-raising, and it freaks out a lot of people, but Calvin did believe in a double predestination.