"For God SO LOVES the HUMAN RACE..."

Not the doctrines of grace (the "scope" of the Atonement was not even an issue). Calvin assumed Christ to be the Propitiation for all men without exception.

 

Augustine taught that Christ suffered in humanity's place.

I do not know we can make the leap to say he affirmed the "Doctrines of Grace" (it would be problematic to even say Calvin affirmed the Doctrines of Grace).

That's the thing with theology - it seeks to answer the questions being asked.

 

That's just plain stupid (the statement, not you) - no one is denying the substutionary nature of the Atonement. No one is denying the unsaved will die in their sins.

You can't (shouldn't) just make up these straw men so you can knock 'em down. That may impress children but not us grown ups.

If the Reformers were correct and Christ is the propitiation for the sins of all without exception and Augustine was correct that Christ died for the sins of the human race where does this idea that they have to affirm universal salvation originate????

(Doctrinally it is within Beza's Calvinizm after he systematized Calvin's work and placed sovereignty within soteriology, something Calvin hadn't done but probably should have).

But here it is assumed because he has proved unable/ unwilling to "connect the dots". He says "if-then" as if we are to blindly follow and that is where he rests his case.

 

Do you believe Calvin could not deal with the full range of Scripture? What about Jonathan Edwards who held a view of predestination very much intertwined with omniscience (some Calvinists call him "moderate" while others [the hypocrites] deny his doctrine as even being Calvinism....except when it suits them). Could he "not deal with the full range of Scripture"? What of Luther? Arminius? Augustine? Aquinas?

Are we to believe you or your choices of teachers and what you select of their teachings incorporate this "full range of Scripture" where all others have failed?

I apologize on advance (but am not sorry for saying it) this is the kind of arrogance in doctrine that typifies the cage staged.

That type have hijacked Calvinism for its own agenda and it is troubling. Your misplacement of the Decrees is not Calvinism. It is neo-orthodox, a corruption of the genuine article, and puts the rest of Calvinism in a bad light.

 

Stick to the doctrines, @Iconoclast . We are not friends and we do not need to pretend otherwise. I have not, and will not, insult you. Don't patronize me and we can get along discussing doctrine.

What we can discuss is OBJECTIVE doctrine (not opinion). Neither of us know if Calvin would have affirmed limited atonement should that have been an issue of his day. I think we both suspect he may have, but that is hypothetical.

We both know Jonathan Edwards affirmed predestination (you mentioned studying the man's doctrine), but not in a way that many "stronger" Calvinists would accept.

The issue is that Calvinists have not historically denied that Christ is a propitiation for the sins of manking, without exception (to borrow from Calvin). Some have adopted that view but others never did.

The reasoning is we cannot simply state "if Christ is the propitiation for the sin of man without exception/ for the entire human race (Calvin/ Augustine) then all are saved or Christ died for mo ones sins.

If you want to make that claim then you need to defend it instead of just stating it as fact.

Christ is the propitiation for all man's sins without exception (Calvin). Christ died for the sin of the human race (Augustine). Yet only those who believe are saved.

 

I am referencing these men and their theologies. Scripture does not settle the matter as philosophical leanings color interpretation.

You may not find value in the works of Calvin, Edwards, and Augustine (which may explain why you found their view on this topic so inept). But they were scholars and have offered much on tbe topic.

Scripture states that Christ is the propitiation for all man's sins, and the language (as Calvin noted) demands this to be without exception.

Yet Scripture also clearly presents the unsaved as dying in their sin.

That should settle it, and traditionally it did for most (to include many Calvinists).

But as Calvinistic Baptists became more and more like Presbyterians that baptize a neo-orthodox "Calvinism" emerged which does not really belong to Baptists because of their Presbyterian leanings and never belonged to the Reformed churches (proper) because of their Baptist distinctive.

I suspect this plays a lot in the "cage stage-ness" many experience. They are neo-orthodox and do not really fit in with any camp so they force their own.

 

Apologies...I should have clarified that it was not Calvin, Edwards, or Augustine who said that Christ is the propitiation for all man's sin. That was actually Sripture. I offered Calvin's affirmation that this means all men without exception snd Augustine's view that Christ died for the sins of the human race.

I should have provided a verse....but you know the saying - give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

Christ said to repent and believe and spoke of many who would die in their sins. Again, sorry but I am not going to spoon-feed anyone. It would be a disservice anyway because you'd never learn to discern Scripture from men's words.

 

@Iconoclast ,

As I've stated I have not insulted you but I no desire to be on friendly terms (I do not desire you and I to be more familiar than is warranted to discuss issues). If you think you see an insult between the lines then you have my sincere apology and I invite you to reexamine the post (they were worded very carfully and very intentionally).

Scripture states that Jesus is the propitiation for the sins of all men. This is a verse (it is not one of the scholars you want banned from the conversation). The "all men" is clarified in the verse (as Calvin rightely identified as "without exception" and Augustine alluded to with his conviction that Christ died for the sin of the human race as a whole).

The problem with excluding the commentaries of other men is that when you come up with an idea that is unsubstianted by other Christians then you are without a doubt wrong. Men disagree and you may find yourself agreeing with one who holds the same phiosophy as you, but if you stand alone (or in a very small sect) then you are on very dangerous grounds. This is even more highlighted when you are dismissing scholars who dedicadted their entire lives to God's Word simply because you don't want to consider the "words of men".

God gave these men to the faith. We do not blindly follow them, and even they disagreed with each other. But we should not dismiss their contributions so lightly.

Anyway, to restate - it was John (the Apostle, not Calvin) who wrote that Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the world. I referenced Calvin to show my insistance this is "the sins of all men without exception" is within orthodox Calvinism (since you phrased your reply that my "Calvinism"is somehow not Calvinism).

In other words, that was Scripture (you were thinking the wrong "John").