Calvin on the Extent of the Atonement

My study-room mate here at Wycliffe Hall Russ Dawn has written an interesting paper comparing and contrasting Calvin and his successor Theodore Beza on a number of issues including the extent of the atonement. On the one side, R.T. Kendall claims that Calvin did not teach limited atonement, whereas Beza did. Richard Muller replies that Calvin upheld the Lombardian distinction between the sufficiency of Christ's work for all sin, and the efficiency of that work only for the elect. Russ writes:

It is not patent, however, that Muller has resolved all the difficulties. Kendall, for instance, recognises that in Calvin's thought, although Christ died for all, he only intercedes for the elect, but he interprets this as meaning that for Calvin the decree of election 'is not rendered effectual in Christ's death but in His ascension and intercession at the Father's right hand'...In the final analysis, the best reading is that Beza and Calvin differed on the extent of the atonement. Beza clearly espoused limited atonement, whereas Calvin could clearly express universal atonement, or less clearly express limited atonement. It would be a selective, possibily tendentious reading of Calvin to place him squarely in the camp of the doctrine of limited atonement.

Kendall himself says:

Fundamental to the doctrine of faith in John Calvin is his belief that Christ died indiscriminately for all men. Equally crucial however is his conviction that, until faith is given, 'all that He has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value for us.'

This might be somewhat overstating the case: Calvin doesn't clear up this issue because it wasn't a question he was particularly conscious of. However, what IS interesting in Calvin is that (as with the sacraments) faith, which is itself a gift of God by the Holy Spirit, is needed in order to effect salvation.