The extent of
the atonement is an argument that Calvin never faced, having died some 50 years
before the question was posed by the Remonstrants. This is factual, but is used
by Donald Macleod in a review article he wrote in 2009 as a pretended defense of Calvin, though in what sense is difficult
to ascertain. This point has been
forwarded by other Reformed men in an attempt to ‘explain away’ rather than
‘explain’ Calvin’s constant use of universalist language in his teaching. Macleod holds that ‘here is a love on God’s
part for the whole of mankind. God loves
all men ...beyond the general love of God for the whole of mankind, there is a
special love for those who are his own choice people. ...God’s general love for
the human race confers upon mankind a vast array of precious blessings,’[1]
and these are the blessings of common grace. He states quite emphatically that ‘God ... doesn't want anyone to
perish. He wants all men to be saved.’[2]
‘At immeasurable personal cost he made himself a propitiation for the sins
of the whole world.’[3]
So Macleod
himself is most comfortable with universalistic language when describing God’s
attitude and relationship to humanity; this is also the language of Calvin and
Amyraut, but more importantly, it is the teaching of Scripture. The argument
seems to be that if the Arminians had been around when Calvin was alive, he
would not have used such ‘Arminian’ language, but would have followed the
theological trajectory set by Beza, and adopted more particularistic language.
No comments:
Post a Comment