I believe Calvin was referring to all people of the world, from every tribe, tongue and nation. Not just the Jews, as the Jews thought.
It does not appear that way
see also
OCTOBER 5, 2006
He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him.—
John Calvin on Romans 5:18
In the Torrance edition:
Paul makes grace common to all men, not because it in fact extends to all, but because it is offered to all. Although Christ suffered for the sins of the world, and is offered by the goodness of God without distinction to all men, yet not all receive Him.
John Calvin, “The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians,” trans. R. MacKenzie, in
Calvin's New Testament Commentaries, ed. D. W. Torrance and T. F. Torrance, 12 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994–96), 8:117–18.
1) Calvin says that the gospel call is an "offer."
Some may object to the notion that the gospel is an "offer" or an "invitation," but not Calvin. He understood the conditionality of the gospel call and/or man's responsibility to believe. Though Christ died for you, he must be voluntarily "received" through faith in order to be justified.
2) Calvin says that the gospel is offered "through God's benignity [or goodness]."
God's offer of Christ to all that hear the gospel call is grounded in his goodness, kindness and love (or
benignity). In other words, according to Calvin, it's a well-meant or sincere offer.
3) Calvin says that God benignantly offers Christ "indiscriminately to all."
It's not merely the case that
we, in our ignorance of who is elect and who is not, are to offer Christ indiscriminately to all, but that
God himself offers Christ through our gospel call in an indiscriminate fashion (to both elect and non-elect). God is not ignorant of his chosen ones, but he still offers Christ to all indiscriminately, i.e. even to the non-elect.
See
this R. B. Kuiper quote for more on this subject.
4) Calvin says that Christ suffered "for the sins of the whole world."
Some may try to escape what Calvin is saying here, but the honest mind can see that the "all" who "do not receive him" are a subset of the "world." Calvin does not equate the "world" with the elect scattered abroad here. He clearly says that Christ suffered for the sins of some who do not receive him (i.e. the non-elect). One can find other quotes from Calvin where he says that Christ died for some who finally perish.
It does not follow that he thinks that Christ suffered for all with an
equal intent to save all, so let not that straw man be erected. There are more options other than 1) Christ suffered
only for the salvation of the elect or 2) Christ suffered for all with an
equal intent to save all. The
tertium quid is 3) Christ intended to suffer for the whole world sufficiently, but he especially (unequal intention) suffered for the elect. This is why
Charles Hodge says in his Systematic Theology that, "it has in all ages been customary with Augustinians to say that Christ died
'sufficienter pro omnibus, efficaciter tantum pro electis;' sufficiently for all, efficaciously only for the elect. There is a sense, therefore, in which He died for all, and there is a sense in which He died for the elect alone." Richard Baxter rightly says in his work on
Universal Redemption that:
When God saith so expressly that Christ died for all [
2 Cor. 5: 14–15], and tasted death for every man [
Heb. 2: 9], and is the ransom for all [
1 Tim. 2: 6], and the propitiation for the sins of the whole world [
1 Jn. 2: 2], it beseems every Christian rather to explain in what sense Christ died for all, than flatly to deny it.
One of My Favorite John Calvin (1509–1564) Quotes: On Romans 5:18
theologicalmeditations.blogspot.com