Covenant Theology Versus Dispensationalism

[Robert Snow]

1. Are you implying that dispensationalists are not scholarly?

Quite the contrary. They just take the Word of God at face value as opposed to the typical Calvinist, who looks more to Calvin and his ilk.

2. Are you aware that Covenant Theology is much simpler than Dispensational Theology?

I disagree. Calvinism requires twisting and denying of plain Scripture in order to appear to be scholarly instead of following the clear commands of God.

 

[kyredneck]

Just wondering if people understand that there are other alternatives to covenanatl or dispensational theologies that are more biblical than either?

Would this be 'Israelology' that you mentioned on another thread? I'm curious about that. I googled it and seen where there's a book out by Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, founder and head of Ariel Ministries http://www.ariel.org/ with that title. Could you tell me something about it?

[edit] Correction, it was post #21 of this thread that you mentioned 'Israelology'.

 

[glfredrick]

Quite the contrary. They just take the Word of God at face value as opposed to the typical Calvinist, who looks more to Calvin and his ilk.



I disagree. Calvinism requires twisting and denying of plain Scripture in order to appear to be scholarly instead of following the clear commands of God.

Robert, you really need to lighten up with the Calvin stuff. I will lay heavy odds that you did not arrive at your dispensational theology JUST from the study of Scripture. You were taught this system and/or read it as notes in a study Bible. You did not invent the system on your own.

So, if you are going to paint the Calvinist with that brush, you had better check to see if you are slopping the same paint on yourself.

By the way, just how much Calvin have you actually read? And if none, why not? John Calvin was one of the influential persons in the history of Baptists everywhere. We are indebted to him for much of our current theology. It would be good to know what HE says instead of whomever you are listening to says about him.

I'd really like for you to rebut Calvin's actual writings instead of this straw man that you continually prop up.

Additionally, you do know that Arminianism stems from Calvin, right? Jacob Arminius was a student of Calvin's work. The least you could do is follow your esteemed theologian's example and deal with Calvin himself.

 

[quantumfaith]

Robert, you really need to lighten up with the Calvin stuff. I will lay heavy odds that you did not arrive at your dispensational theology JUST from the study of Scripture. You were taught this system and/or read it as notes in a study Bible. You did not invent the system on your own.

So, if you are going to paint the Calvinist with that brush, you had better check to see if you are slopping the same paint on yourself.

By the way, just how much Calvin have you actually read? And if none, why not? John Calvin was one of the influential persons in the history of Baptists everywhere. We are indebted to him for much of our current theology. It would be good to know what HE says instead of whomever you are listening to says about him.

I'd really like for you to rebut Calvin's actual writings instead of this straw man that you continually prop up.

Additionally, you do know that Arminianism stems from Calvin, right? Jacob Arminius was a student of Calvin's work. The least you could do is follow your esteemed theologian's example and deal with Calvin himself.

GL: How do you know that Robert is arminian? Has he stated so? If so, well fine. If not, then you are assuming anyone not holding to the DoG is by necessity arminian.

 

[thomas15]

2. Are you aware that Covenant Theology is much simpler than Dispensational Theology?

Go ahead J.D., make your case.

 

[glfredrick]

GL: How do you know that Robert is arminian? Has he stated so? If so, well fine. If not, then you are assuming anyone not holding to the DoG is by necessity arminian.

That's true... He could be Pelagian. :laugh:

 

[thomas15]

Robert, just so you know, no one is trying to belittle you or even talk you out of any theological position that you hold. But you haven't really studied dispensationalism against the issues theologians have against it on a point-by-point basis. As one who was also raised in a dispensational church, I thought that stuff was correct also until I came to understand what it really said -- and did not say. I even have a great set of roll-out wall charts still in my possession, just in case i forget how complicated and convoluted dispensationalism actually is.

glfredrick, you start out the above paragraph very well but after the first sentence things start to go downhill. Don't take this personally because it's not intended to be personal but you do what many reformed/covenant theologians do. What is that you ask? Good question.

First, they think that because they are smarter than the average bear that their personal experience along the theological bunny trail is the ultimate end-all experience. But all is not lost until they (and i'm speaking in a general sense) start to define a theological system that they claim to have been born in, incorrectly. My good friend Dr. Riddlebarger does it, right out of the shoot, he informs his readers that he was born into dispensationalism but one day he matured in his understanding and presto chango, he converted to covenant A-mil. And of course, if the dear reader wants to be heally hip and scholarly, a member of the A-Team, they will follow in his footsteps.

Of course, being in a dispensational church does not make one a dispensationalist. And to use Dr. Riddlebarger as an example, he many times describes a dispensationalism that is unique to himself and no one in his camp ever calls him out on it. Why? because they do it also. There is a name for this kind of behavior.

I fully realize that I can say this until I turn blue in the face, that is the preceived "issues" in dispensationalism are nothing compared to the preceived "issues" in covenant theology but until and individual gets past the "wall chart" or "left behind" mentality, mine are wasted words. I say this because at the core of the covenant/dispensational debate is how do you handle the Old Testament in light of the New Testament, not does Jesus return before, during or after the tribulation or how do we define the millinnium. And those waters are not going to be entered by anyone other than an individual who is determined to get to the nub of the issue, which by the way once entered is by no means a slam dunk for either side.

Not that it matters to me personally, but when foes of dispensationalism cut and past Bible verses or quote from The Christ of the Covenants to make their point they make little impression on people like me because some of us, odd as it may seem, have considered their arguments already. This is where a little humility on the part of some reformed/covenant hobbiest would be helpful in their cause because they seem to think (some of them anyway) that they are expounding some bright light from on high that the poor misguided dipsey has never immagined existed.

Food for thought.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

That's true... He could be Pelagian. :laugh:

I didnt know Robert was a Pelican....does he have a big nose?

 

[glfredrick]

glfredrick, you start out the above paragraph very well but after the first sentence things start to go downhill. Don't take this personally because it's not intended to be personal but you do what many reformed/covenant theologians do. What is that you ask? Good question.

First, they think that because they are smarter than the average bear that their personal experience along the theological bunny trail is the ultimate end-all experience. But all is not lost until they (and i'm speaking in a general sense) start to define a theological system that they claim to have been born in, incorrectly. My good friend Dr. Riddlebarger does it, right out of the shoot, he informs his readers that he was born into dispensationalism but one day he matured in his understanding and presto chango, he converted to covenant A-mil. And of course, if the dear reader wants to be heally hip and scholarly, a member of the A-Team, they will follow in his footsteps.

Of course, being in a dispensational church does not make one a dispensationalist. And to use Dr. Riddlebarger as an example, he many times describes a dispensationalism that is unique to himself and no one in his camp ever calls him out on it. Why? because they do it also. There is a name for this kind of behavior.

I fully realize that I can say this until I turn blue in the face, that is the preceived "issues" in dispensationalism are nothing compared to the preceived "issues" in covenant theology but until and individual gets past the "wall chart" or "left behind" mentality, mine are wasted words. I say this because at the core of the covenant/dispensational debate is how do you handle the Old Testament in light of the New Testament, not does Jesus return before, during or after the tribulation or how do we define the millinnium. And those waters are not going to be entered by anyone other than an individual who is determined to get to the nub of the issue, which by the way once entered is by no means a slam dunk for either side.

Not that it matters to me personally, but when foes of dispensationalism cut and past Bible verses or quote from The Christ of the Covenants to make their point they make little impression on people like me because some of us, odd as it may seem, have considered their arguments already. This is where a little humility on the part of some reformed/covenant hobbiest would be helpful in their cause because they seem to think (some of them anyway) that they are expounding some bright light from on high that the poor misguided dipsey has never immagined existed.

Food for thought.

I reject dispensational theology for reasons I outlined above -- not as a reaction to the fact that I somehow "graduated" into a higher form of knowledge. Plainly, dispensational theology has fatal flaws that have been detailed very well in book length works that are available for anyone to read.

Also note that I am neither arguing for a covenantal view. It too is deficient, starting with its (almost universally misunderstood) covenants -- the covenant of works (Pre-fall Adam) and the covenant of grace (all else). Neither of these were in fact covenants, which makes the whole rest of the system suspect. Yes, there were covenants, but they do not make for an overarching "center" or theology of the entire Bible.

So far, only Election seems to fit the bill for an overarching "center" theology that has explanatory power for the entire text of Scripture, but this theology is in its infancy stages, and so is not yet widely available. One must dig through a myriad of theological journals to follow the discussion as it envelops.

Finally, the entire tenor of your post indicates that I am somehow ignorant of the actual tenets of dispensationalism or covenantalism. I am not. I simply reject both as having a "center" that can adequately deal with the theology of the entire Bible, both having fatal flaws.

If you would like to examine the points of both contrasted to a different view, bring specific points to the table. I would be willing to engage an orderly debate of the issues without leaning to ad hominem attacks,which you appear to bring against me, simply for suggesting that dispensationalism is flawed and that I have changed.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I reject dispensational theology for reasons I outlined above -- not as a reaction to the fact that I somehow "graduated" into a higher form of knowledge. Plainly, dispensational theology has fatal flaws that have been detailed very well in book length works that are available for anyone to read.

Also note that I am neither arguing for a covenantal view. It too is deficient, starting with its (almost universally misunderstood) covenants -- the covenant of works (Pre-fall Adam) and the covenant of grace (all else). Neither of these were in fact covenants, which makes the whole rest of the system suspect. Yes, there were covenants, but they do not make for an overarching "center" or theology of the entire Bible.

So far, only Election seems to fit the bill for an overarching "center" theology that has explanatory power for the entire text of Scripture, but this theology is in its infancy stages, and so is not yet widely available. One must dig through a myriad of theological journals to follow the discussion as it envelops.

Finally, the entire tenor of your post indicates that I am somehow ignorant of the actual tenets of dispensationalism or covenantalism. I am not. I simply reject both as having a "center" that can adequately deal with the theology of the entire Bible, both having fatal flaws.

If you would like to examine the points of both contrasted to a different view, bring specific points to the table. I would be willing to engage an orderly debate of the issues without leaning to ad hominem attacks,which you appear to bring against me, simply for suggesting that dispensationalism is flawed and that I have changed.

Well said Guy....:applause:

 

[thomas15]

Finally, the entire tenor of your post indicates that I am somehow ignorant of the actual tenets of dispensationalism or covenantalism. I am not. I simply reject both as having a "center" that can adequately deal with the theology of the entire Bible, both having fatal flaws.

If you would like to examine the points of both contrasted to a different view, bring specific points to the table. I would be willing to engage an orderly debate of the issues without leaning to ad hominem attacks,which you appear to bring against me, simply for suggesting that dispensationalism is flawed and that I have changed.

I think it is safe to say that in spite of the fact we are in basic agreement on many things you missed my point on some things and make my point on others. But again, as a general rule I only worry about my theology and not yours or anyone elses.

I'm sorry that you think I ad hominemed you as I didn't set out to specifically do that. But it is interesting that you find fault with everything out there as having some error, a point I agree with you on (I don't claim to have perfect theology). I don't think anyone this side of the pearly gates has it 100% correct, but I think some things are clearly easy to toss out. As far as my tone is concerned, take no offense as I'm a really nice guy.

 

[Robert Snow]

That's true... He could be Pelagian. :laugh:

I actually consider myself to be a bible believer. I don't hold to either side of this century's old argument.

I know that I have been tough on old Calvin, but I imagine he's used to it by now. :laugh:

I do not own any books, nor have I read any books by him, but I would imagine that much of what he says is Scriptural and would be a blessing. I do have access, of course, to much of what Calvin wrote which is available on the Internet. I would not be afraid to read them, but as you know, there is so many works available that it is impossible to read them all.

You made a comment that I did not learn Dispensationalism by reading the bible, but was taught it by someone else. I believe we all have been influenced by the teaching we have set under. I doubt anyone would cold turkey pick up a bible, read it and come up with either side of this debate without outside input of some time.

 

[quantumfaith]

I think it is safe to say that in spite of the fact we are in basic agreement on many things you missed my point on some things and make my point on others. But again, as a general rule I only worry about my theology and not yours or anyone elses.

I'm sorry that you think I ad hominemed you as I didn't set out to specifically do that. But it is interesting that you find fault with everything out there as having some error, a point I agree with you on (I don't claim to have perfect theology). I don't think anyone this side of the pearly gates has it 100% correct, but I think some things are clearly easy to toss out. As far as my tone is concerned, take no offense as I'm a really nice guy.

:thumbs:

BTW: This is the first time I have ever seen "ad hominem" conjugated to be an adverb. May I have permission to use it, although I hope I can refrain from "ad homineming" anyone.

 

[glfredrick]

I think it is safe to say that in spite of the fact we are in basic agreement on many things you missed my point on some things and make my point on others. But again, as a general rule I only worry about my theology and not yours or anyone elses.

I'm sorry that you think I ad hominemed you as I didn't set out to specifically do that. But it is interesting that you find fault with everything out there as having some error, a point I agree with you on (I don't claim to have perfect theology). I don't think anyone this side of the pearly gates has it 100% correct, but I think some things are clearly easy to toss out. As far as my tone is concerned, take no offense as I'm a really nice guy.

What exactly did you say, or I say that lead to this remark?

i guess that ther something we need to examine point-by-point?

Okay... Let's take a look.

glfredrick, you start out the above paragraph very well but after the first sentence things start to go downhill. Don't take this personally because it's not intended to be personal but you do what many reformed/covenant theologians do. What is that you ask? Good question.

Ill try not to take this personally, but you make it personal when you launch out with a statement like, "you do what many reformed/covenant theologians do."

I'm glad that you will explain yourself below...

First, they think that because they are smarter than the average bear that their personal experience along the theological bunny trail is the ultimate end-all experience. But all is not lost until they (and i'm speaking in a general sense) start to define a theological system that they claim to have been born in, incorrectly. My good friend Dr. Riddlebarger does it, right out of the shoot, he informs his readers that he was born into dispensationalism but one day he matured in his understanding and presto chango, he converted to covenant A-mil. And of course, if the dear reader wants to be heally hip and scholarly, a member of the A-Team, they will follow in his footsteps.

If, what "many reformed/covenant theologians do..." is what you describe above, I would be very inclined to believe what you wrote. However, I wonder just how many "reformed/covenant theologians" you have met, studied, etc. That is not self-evident from your remarks.

I am, however, in awe of your ability to describe these so-called "smarter than the average bear ... theological bunny trail..." persons. I also note that your "good friend" is introduced as "Dr. Riddlebarger. There seems to be a bit of disparity between the two remarks that could (could) indicate that you have less respect for the scholarship on one side of this discussion than the other, no?

Then, you seem to supply the explanation you referenced in the first paragraph when you said, "What is that you ask? Good question..." with this statement of erudite wisdom: "but one day he matured in his understanding and presto chango, he converted to covenant A-mil. And of course, if the dear reader wants to be heally hip and scholarly, a member of the A-Team, they will follow in his footsteps."

No chance that the individual ACTUALLY studied out the Scriptures, examined the points of the theology, and found them lacking or critically flawed? Just a "me too" bandwagon effect? Sounds rather shallow, but since you seem to want to paint me in that camp, perhaps I am indeed that shallow! We'll have to prove that out.

Of course, being in a dispensational church does not make one a dispensationalist. And to use Dr. Riddlebarger as an example, he many times describes a dispensationalism that is unique to himself and no one in his camp ever calls him out on it. Why? because they do it also. There is a name for this kind of behavior.

Are there many persons in dispensational churches who are not dispensationalists? Just wondering. Is there some objective way to know this? It seems that dear Dr. Riddlebarger is one example, but how do we know that there are others, or if so, how many? And, are those others "heally hip and scholarly, a member of the A-Team?"

What IS the name for "this kind of behavior?" I don't recall that you mentioned that. It may indeed be germane to the discussion and I'd hate to miss an important point like that!

I fully realize that I can say this until I turn blue in the face, that is the preceived "issues" in dispensationalism are nothing compared to the preceived "issues" in covenant theology but until and individual gets past the "wall chart" or "left behind" mentality, mine are wasted words. I say this because at the core of the covenant/dispensational debate is how do you handle the Old Testament in light of the New Testament, not does Jesus return before, during or after the tribulation or how do we define the millinnium. And those waters are not going to be entered by anyone other than an individual who is determined to get to the nub of the issue, which by the way once entered is by no means a slam dunk for either side.

It would seem that you have an unusual talent. I've met a few guys in my childhood who could pitch a fit and turn blue in the face, but I've never seen an adult Bible scholar do so. Could you you-tube that so we can all give God glory for your talent?

About "perceived issues," we may have something therein to discuss. The reason it is so difficult to "get past the "wall chart" or "left behind" mentality is that those "mentalities" are driven by dispensational theology! I do not notice other theologians who do not hold to dispensational theology writing such works, nor making such wall charts. But the dispensational theology seems to thrive on that sort of orientation.

I well understand the issues surrounding "how do you handle the Old Testament in light of the New Testament"and I have said as much in my posts. I do not find that dispensational OR covenantal theology adequately deal with handling the OT in light of the progressive revelation and fulfillment seen in the NT. Neither do! What is your proposed solution?

You suggest that only "an individual who is determined to get to the nub of the issue, which by the way once entered is by no means a slam dunk for either side...." can handle the issue. Are you suggesting that you are that person, or that I am not? I'm not sure that you know my level of study, nor what it is that I do or do not know about the topic at hand, and to be fair, neither do I know your level in this discussion, but your use of third person here indicates that you rely on the scholarship of others. But cannot both sides, "get to the nub of the issue?"

Not that it matters to me personally, but when foes of dispensationalism cut and past Bible verses or quote from The Christ of the Covenants to make their point they make little impression on people like me because some of us, odd as it may seem, have considered their arguments already. This is where a little humility on the part of some reformed/covenant hobbiest would be helpful in their cause because they seem to think (some of them anyway) that they are expounding some bright light from on high that the poor misguided dipsey has never immagined existed.

Can you supply an example of where I or anyone else who does not see dispensational theology as a sound theology "cut and past [paste] Bible verses or quote from The Christ of the Covenants to make their point?" What I've typically found is that the whole of Scripture is examined in order to formulate a theology of the Bible. That is the main point, no? It is not a theology of a covenant, nor a theology of a period of time, nor a theology of the rapture, or the fall, or Israel or any other individual part of the Scriptures, it is a theology of the entire Bible, which would indicate that the entire Bible is part of the study.

You say, "they make little impression on people like me because some of us, odd as it may seem, have considered their arguments already." Somehow, I have a problem believing that you have indeed done the level of study needed to have set this issue into stone, either for yourself or for others, but that may indeed be the case! I wish to take you at your word, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that you have indeed invested of your time to study out all the various positions -- of dispensational, covenantal, modified dispensational, modified covenantal, and other theologies that are coming into the greater church world even as we hash out this debate. Would you then bring some specific points to bear so we actually have something to debate?

You continue (not personally, for sure!), "This is where a little humility on the part of some reformed/covenant hobbiest would be helpful in their cause because they seem to think (some of them anyway) that they are expounding some bright light from on high that the poor misguided dipsey has never immagined existed."


I am reasonably sure that some "poor misguided dipsey has never immagined existed..." all sorts of things that I am willing to debate here in this thread. But I'll not hold their ignorance against them. They have equal access to the books and journal articles as do those "reformed/covenant hobbiest..."

I would encourage you to bring your entire "professional" dispensational theology to the table so we can examine it point-by-point against the Scriptures and other competing theologies.

Please don't take what I wrote above personally... :thumbsup:

 

[glfredrick]

I actually consider myself to be a bible believer. I don't hold to either side of this century's old argument.

I know that I have been tough on old Calvin, but I imagine he's used to it by now. :laugh:

I do not own any books, nor have I read any books by him, but I would imagine that much of what he says is Scriptural and would be a blessing. I do have access, of course, to much of what Calvin wrote which is available on the Internet. I would not be afraid to read them, but as you know, there is so many works available that it is impossible to read them all.

You made a comment that I did not learn Dispensationalism by reading the bible, but was taught it by someone else. I believe we all have been influenced by the teaching we have set under. I doubt anyone would cold turkey pick up a bible, read it and come up with either side of this debate without outside input of some time.

Yup... So, why did you make the comment about me learning my theology from someone else as if you had not? Not really a great way to debate a point, right?

I also HIGHLY suggest that you actually read Calvin. He wrote a massive commentary on the Bible that is still widely in use today. His level of scholarship is second to none, and we must remember that he was on the front lines in the battle to regain the Bible as the means by which we know God and God's will! If not for Calvin and some of the other early Reformers, we would not be here today having this discussion.

Pick a favorite Bible passage and dig in.

 

[Robert Snow]

His level of scholarship is second to none, and we must remember that he was on the front lines in the battle to regain the Bible as the means by which we know God and God's will! If not for Calvin and some of the other early Reformers, we would not be here today having this discussion.

This is the attitude about Calvin that, I believe, causes much of the problem. It's like saying that if not for Calvin, God would have really been in trouble.

I suggest that God doesn't need anyone, regardless of how smart they seem to be.

Now, I imagine this was not your intent, but from my viewpoint, it appears you think way too much of Calvin's contribution to the Lord's work.

 

[glfredrick]

Calvin on John 3:

16. For God so loved the world.
Christ opens up the first cause, and, as it were, the source of our salvation, and he does so, that no doubt may remain; for our minds cannot find calm repose, until we arrive at the unmerited love of God. As the whole matter of our salvation must not be sought any where else than in Christ, so we must see whence Christ came to us, and why he was offered to be our Savior. Both points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish. And this order ought to be carefully observed; for such is the wicked ambition which belongs to our nature, that when the question relates to the origin of our salvation, we quickly form diabolical imaginations about our own merits. Accordingly, we imagine that God is reconciled to us, because he has reckoned us worthy that he should look upon us. But Scripture everywhere extols his pure and unmingled mercy, which sets aside all merits.

And the words of Christ mean nothing else, when he declares the cause to be in the love of God. For if we wish to ascend higher, the Spirit shuts the door by the mouth of Paul, when he informs us that this love was founded on the purpose of his will, (Ephesians 1:5.) And, indeed, it is very evident that Christ spoke in this manner, in order to draw away men from the contemplation of themselves to look at the mercy of God alone. Nor does he say that God was moved to deliver us, because he perceived in us something that was worthy of so excellent a blessing, but ascribes the glory of our deliverance entirely to his love. And this is still more clear from what follows; for he adds, that God gave his Son to men, that they may not perish. Hence it follows that, until Christ bestow his aid in rescuing the lost, all are destined to eternal destruction. This is also demonstrated by Paul from a consideration of the time;

for he loved us while we were still enemies by sin, (Romans 5:8, 10.)

And, indeed, where sin reigns, we shall find nothing but the wrath of God, which draws death along with it. It is mercy, therefore, that reconciles us to God, that he may likewise restore us to life.

This mode of expression, however, may appear to be at variance with many passages of Scripture, which lay in Christ the first foundation of the love of God to us, and show that out of him we are hated by God. But we ought to remember — what I have already stated — that the secret love with which the Heavenly Father loved us in himself is higher than all other causes; but that the grace which he wishes to be made known to us, and by which we are excited to the hope of salvation, commences with the reconciliation which was procured through Christ. For since he necessarily hates sin, how shall we believe that we are loved by him, until atonement has been made for those sins on account of which he is justly offended at us? Thus, the love of Christ must intervene for the purpose of reconciling God to us, before we have any experience of his fatherly kindness. But as we are first informed that God, because he loved us, gave his Son to die for us, so it is immediately added, that it is Christ alone on whom, strictly speaking, faith ought to look.

He gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him may not perish.
This, he says, is the proper look of faith, to be fixed on Christ, in whom it beholds the breast of God filled with love: this is a firm and enduring support, to rely on the death of Christ as the only pledge of that love. The word only-begotten is emphatic, (ἐμφατικὸν) to magnify the fervor of the love of God towards us. For as men are not easily convinced that God loves them, in order to remove all doubt, he has expressly stated that we are so very dear to God that, on our account, he did not even spare his only-begotten Son. Since, therefore, God has most abundantly testified his love towards us, whoever is not satisfied with this testimony, and still remains in doubt, offers a high insult to Christ, as if he had been an ordinary man given up at random to death. But we ought rather to consider that, in proportion to the estimation in which God holds his only-begotten Son, so much the more precious did our salvation appear to him, for the ransom of which he chose that his only-begotten Son should die. To this name Christ has a right, because he is by nature the only Son of God; and he communicates this honor to us by adoption, when we are engrafted into his body.

That whosoever believeth on him may not perish.
It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.

Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all. For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith. Here, too, is displayed a wonderful effect of faith; for by it we receive Christ such as he is given to us by the Father — that is, as having freed us from the condemnation of eternal death, and made us heirs of eternal life, because, by the sacrifice of his death, he has atoned for our sins, that nothing may prevent God from acknowledging us as his sons. Since, therefore, faith embraces Christ, with the efficacy of his death and the fruit of his resurrection, we need not wonder if by it we obtain likewise the life of Christ.

Still it is not yet very evident why and how faith bestows life upon us. Is it because Christ renews us by his Spirit, that the righteousness of God may live and be vigorous in us; or is it because, having been cleansed by his blood, we are accounted righteous before God by a free pardon? It is indeed certain, that these two things are always joined together; but as the certainty of salvation is the subject now in hand, we ought chiefly to hold by this reason, that we live, because God loves us freely by not imputing to us our sins. For this reason sacrifice is expressly mentioned, by which, together with sins, the curse and death are destroyed. I have already explained the object of these two clauses, which is, to inform us that in Christ we regain the possession of life, of which we are destitute in ourselves; for in this wretched condition of mankind, redemption, in the order of time, goes before salvation.

 

[quantumfaith]

You have "read into" my comments. I'm only saying that Calvin was one of the men that God used mightily to make a dent in the darkness and that his biblical work is solid and worthy.

God "needing" Calvin, etc., is just a means of firing but another argument. We both know that God doesn't need anyone -- including you and I. But God does USE persons that He has gifted as teachers, evangelists, pastors, etc., and the Word says so...

You are so very correct, God does not need us or ANYTHING, but he sure does love us.

Jesus Loves me this I know
For the Bible tells (shows) me so.....

 

[glfredrick]

More Calvin:

17. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world.
It is a confirmation of the preceding statement; for it was not in vain that God sent his own Son to us. He came not to destroy; and therefore it follows, that it is the peculiar office of the Son of God, that all who believe may obtain salvation by him. There is now no reason why any man should be in a state of hesitation, or of distressing anxiety, as to the manner in which he may escape death, when we believe that it was the purpose of God that Christ should deliver us from it. The word world is again repeated, that no man may think himself wholly excluded, if he only keep the road of faith.

The word judge (πρίνω) is here put for condemn, as in many other passages. When he declares that he did not come to condemn the world, he thus points out the actual design of his coming; for what need was there that Christ should come to destroy us who were utterly ruined? We ought not, therefore, to look at any thing else in Christ, than that God, out of his boundless goodness chose to extend his aid for saving us who were lost; and whenever our sins press us — whenever Satan would drive us to despair — we ought to hold out this shield, that God is unwilling that we should be overwhelmed with everlasting destruction, because he has appointed his Son to be the salvation of the world

When Christ says, in other passages, that he is come to judgment, (John 9:39 when he is called a stone of offense, (1 Peter 2:7 when he is said to be set for the destruction of many, (Luke 2:34 this may be regarded as accidental, or as arising from a different cause; for they who reject the grace offered in him deserve to find him the Judge and Avenger of contempt so unworthy and base. A striking instance of this may be seen in the Gospel; for though it is strictly

the power of God for salvation to every one who believeth, (Romans 1:16,)

the ingratitude of many causes it to become to them death. Both have been well expressed by Paul, when he boasts of having vengeance at hand, by which he will punish all the adversaries of his doctrine after that the obedience of the godly shall have been fulfilled,
(2 Corinthians 10:6)

The meaning amounts to this, that the Gospel is especially, and in the first instance, appointed for believers, that it may be salvation to them; but that afterwards believers will not escape unpunished who, despising the grace of Christ, chose to have him as the Author of death rather than of life.

18. He who believeth in him is not condemned.
When he so frequently and so earnestly repeats, that all believers are beyond danger of death, we may infer from it the great necessity of firm and assured confidence, that the conscience may not be kept perpetually in a state of trembling and alarm. He again declares that, when we have believed, there is no remaining condemnation, which he will afterwards explain more fully in the Fifth Chapter. The present tense — is not condemned — is here used instead of the future tense — shall not be condemned — according to the custom of the Hebrew language; for he means that believers are safe from the fear of condemnation.

But he who believeth not is condemned already.
This means that there is no other remedy by which any human being can escape death; or, in other words, that for all who reject the life given to them in Christ, there remains nothing but death, since life consists in nothing else than in faith. The past tense of the verb, is condemned already, (ἤδη κέκριται,) was used by him emphatically, (ἐμφατικῶς,) to express more strongly that all unbelievers are utterly ruined. But it ought to be observed that Christ speaks especially of those whose wickedness shall be displayed in open contempt of the Gospel. For though it is true that there never was any other remedy for escaping death than that men should betake themselves to Christ, yet as Christ here speaks of the preaching of the Gospel, which was to be spread throughout the whole world, he directs his discourse against those who deliberately and maliciously extinguish the light which God had kindled.

 

[glfredrick]

This is the attitude about Calvin that, I believe, causes much of the problem. It's like saying that if not for Calvin, God would have really been in trouble.

I suggest that God doesn't need anyone, regardless of how smart they seem to be.

Now, I imagine this was not your intent, but from my viewpoint, it appears you think way too much of Calvin's contribution to the Lord's work.

You have "read into" my comments. I'm only saying that Calvin was one of the men that God used mightily to make a dent in the darkness and that his biblical work is solid and worthy.

God "needing" Calvin, etc., is just a means of firing but another argument. We both know that God doesn't need anyone -- including you and I. But God does USE persons that He has gifted as teachers, evangelists, pastors, etc., and the Word says so...

In truth, the very name "Calvin" sets your teeth on edge because you have been somewhat conditioned to see him that way. I HIGHLY suggest doing some investigation on your own. You may be pleasantly surprised.

I posted a bit of Calvin above, just for the record.