I just read this essay Hermeneutical discontinuity between Calvin and later Calvinism by Kevin D. Kennedy from Southwestern Theological Seminary in Fort Worth Texas in the Scottish Journal of Theology Volume 64 (2011) – page 299. Unfortunately I didn’t have the chance to make a copy of it (I read this while I was at my alma mater’s theological library today — Multnomah University), but I would like to try and provide a synopsis of his thesis and argument (as I can recall).
Basically, Kennedy argues that John Calvin and the later Calvinists (post-Reformed orthodox) function with discontinuity relative to their hermeneutics on the extent of the atonement. For Calvin, as Kennedy convincingly 
argues, he held to a universal atonement, but not universal salvation; for the “Calvinists,” according to Kennedy, they hold to a limited (particular) atonement, and a particular salvation. As part of Kennedy’s “ground clearing work,” he notes Richard Muller’s work in this area; as well as the work of Paul Helm and Roger Nicole (their rejoinder to R.T. Kendall’s work on Calvin). He recognizes that said scholars need to be acknowledged for their work in the area of Calvin studies (especially Muller), but that in this particular area they all over-state things when it comes to Calvin’s view of the extent of the atonement. Kennedy demonstrates that Calvin’s hermeneutics, both in his commentaries (on the salient passages), and in his little book Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God consistently argues for a universal atonement (but not salvation). In particular, Kennedy looks at Matthew 20.28 which says:
[j]ust as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.
Kennedy demonstrates (by quoting Calvin’s commentary), that Calvin believes that the word ‘many’ is not referring to a limited class of people (the elect), or that it is excluding one group of people from the other (elect from the reprobate)—as, he notes, John Owen, along with the rest of the post-Reformed orthodox Tradition would argue—but that Jesus is providing dominical teaching by making a contrast between himself as the One over and against the Many for whom he died pro nobis (or would be dying, given the historical present in context). Kennedy goes on to look at other passages in Calvin’s commentaries that are pertinent to this topic; all illustrating this same point. For Calvin, when the word ‘many’ is used in these contexts it is not intended to exclude one class of people from the other; but instead, it is to contrast Christ’s death for us, over and against ‘us’ the many (or the point that Jesus wasn’t dying for himself, but for us). Kennedy, then, moves on and takes a look at the more universalist passages in Paul’s corpus (like I Tim. 2.4 etc.); he notes that Calvin, qualifies the word ‘all’ (like God desires that ‘all’ men be saved) in a way that speaks, not to his view of the extent of the atonement; but to Calvin’s view that not all will believe. So the limiting, for Calvin, according to Kennedy, has to do with appropriation of salvation and not the extent of the atonement as the post-Reformed orthodox interpret Calvin (so Muller, Helm, Nicole, et al).
Kennedy concludes that the post-Reformed have imposed their later developed hermeneutic of particularism onto Calvin’s hermeneutic of the atonement. He suggests that a more fruitful way forward, while noting that there are some continuities between Calvin and the Calvinists (per Muller’s exhaustive argument, like in his After Calvin), would be not to gloss over the genuine discontinuities that are present between Calvin and the Calvinists. In this instance the primary distinction is between Calvin’s view of the extent of the atonement (which is universal), and the particularist view of the atonement held by the Calvinists (the Reformed orthodox ones).
In closing, what is very enlightening with Kennedy’s essay, is that it helps to substantiate what we Evangelical Calvinists, Thomas Torrance amongst us, have been arguing in regard to Calvin’s view of the atonement. This helps substantiate Thomas Torrance’s reading of many of the Scottish theologians in his book “Scottish Theology;” which argues that there is a whole strain of development of Calvinism in Scotland that follows and develops this teaching on the atonement first articulated by Calvin. Again, it is important to note that Calvinism has a variegated currency; and much of this is because Calvin left the doors open for more than one trajectory. In other words, his method was not scholastic.
The term Calvinism is not one selected by Calvinists themsevles. Calvinists do not necessarily seek to follow the teachings of Calvin but the teachings of Scripture. To disprove a connection between Calvin and Calvinism really accomplishes nothing because Calvinism is a term defined by the Remonstrants, not those who follow Calvin.
Actually Calvinism is a term that developed much earlier than the Remonstrants (just check out Bruce Gordon’s most recent book of Calvin); but it is true that Calvin would not want the label “Calvinist” associated with his name. Nevertheless, the point of this thesis isn’t a rhetorical one (as your comment presupposes), but a material/conceptual one relative to Calvin’s personal theological grammar.
It seems like you only read the title of this post, and not the post in toto. Read the post, excogitatingengineer, and then try again.
Bobby, thanks for bringing this article by Kennedy to our attention. I will have to copy it from a local library. Looks like a good read.
Do you think Kennedy does a good job of capturing Calvin’s thought on the various verses? It seems sometimes his commentary offers a perspective one way which is then reversed in the Institutes. Also, wouldn’t the Institutes be considered his mature thought and therefore definitive of his actual theological development?
I think Kennedy does a good job. Your point is the usual counter argument if folks rely too heavily on Calvin’s commentaries to make their points vs. his Institutes. But Kennedy recognizes this, and I think still does a good job. Richard Muller has a lot to say about this in his “Unaccommodated Calvin”.
Bobby, very interesting post (I re-read it after just skimming it the first time). I am no scholar so I guess I don’t understand how one (presumably Calvin in this case) could distinguish between the extent of the atonement and the appropriation of salvation given that the atonement was penal and substitutionary.
EE,
It’s because Calvin did not follow necessitarian logic with such things. He did not follow the Ramist and scholastic logic of those who bear his name today; or he did not try to make logical deductions from certain theological realities; instead he lived ‘Confessionally’ with tension. He also saw an asymmetry between election and reprobation; thus he could emphasize and develop the positive side, and relegate the negative side to the ‘accidents’ of salvation-history — meaning he saw trying to explain such things as non-starters (non-revealed, and in fact an ‘abyss’) — just see his commentary on II Cor 2.15 for example.
Why do you think that belief in penal substitutionary atonement require that Calvin also believe in a particular atonement? I don’t see the necessity there. Esp. given what I just said about Calvin’s approach. Further, what you’re missing, I think, in your characterization of Calvin’s view of the atonement is the framework through which Calvin thought, primarily; and that is his unio mystica (mystical union, in Christ, union with Christ) theology. IN other words Calvin wasn’t a prototypical Federal or Covenantal theologian who thought through the lens of the Covenant of Works etc. So it would be a disservice and anachronistic to impose that reading onto Calvin’s own theology (just see my most recent post on Calvin).
peace.