John Calvin on The Extent of Jesus' Death

This is a very old chestnut. It was R.T. Kendall back in the 1980s who propounded the view that Calvin wasn't really a Calvinist. He was soundly refuted by a chap called Paul Helm.
Calvin and the Calvinists
Paul Helm - Wikipedia
The problem is that many people do not understand what Calvinism is and confuse Calvin with his evil younger brother Hypercalvin. Calvin, in common with all those who followed him, taught that there was no sin so heinous that the blood of Christ was not sufficient to atone for it, that salvation in Christ was to be proclaimed to all indiscriminately, and that 'whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.'

Edit: Readers may find this article by Helm helpful: The Many Shades of Calvinism by Paul Helm

 

I believe that many modern Calvinists don't know what Classical Calvinism is and call things hyper that are not. Labels are no longer accurate nor are they very useful. Most modern Calvinists call double predestination "hyper." Calvin undeniable believed D.P. I guess that would make Calvin Hyper. By modern standards, in other areas, Calvin was "low". My point is not an attack on reformed theology. My point is,v the labels are no longer very useful.

 

According to Calvinists, whatever is thought to be Calvinism's errors are not because opponent does not know what they are talking about, or the flaw only applies to the mystical hyper Calvinists, and not to mainstream Calvinist.

But ordinary Calvinists on this board have claimed that "the many" did not apply to everybody but the one. Note this specific problem in understanding was not addressed.

And ordinary Calvinists on this board have claimed "the world" in John 1:29 and John 3:16 did not refer to the whole human race, but just the elect. Note this specific problem in understanding was not addressed.

And ordinary Calvinists on this board have claimed Romans 5:18 does not say justification to life is "available" to all humanity. Note this specific problem in understanding was not addressed.

Calvinism's Limited Atonement is a denial that God loves humanity, and that Christ died as a ransom for all.

But rather than clearly admitting to the doctrine Christ did not die for all, we get word play. Did anyone claim Christ's blood was not sufficient to "atone" for sin? Nope. Did anyone claim the gospel should not be "proclaimed?" Here, although the non-elect, according to Calvinism, are unable to understand and respond to the gospel, it should be offered to them because God said so. And finally, according to Calvinism, only those previously chosen before creation as foreseen individuals, after "regeneration" (via Irresistible Grace)are able to call on the name.

John Calvin certainly held bogus views, but his rejection of the idea Christ did not die for all is valid.

 

His view was that we need to give to all lost sinners the Gospel, as only God knows whom would be His very own elect to respond to that message!

 

Right, the non-elect cannot understand the gospel according to Calvinism's "total spiritual inability" but we should "give" the Gospel as if salvation is available to all. Got it...
And folks, note the disavowal of another Calvinist doctrine, "God knows whom would be His very own elect..." should say (according to the bogus views of Calvinism) God know who are His very own elect..." And according to the bogus doctrine, the "chosen ones" are regenerated with irresistible grace and given faith, so the witness of others is unnecessary to salvation. On and on the disavowal of their doctrine goes with every post...

 

Van, you really should read someone like a berkhof to get a summary of Calvinism , as we hold that God ordained that the message of the Gospel would be used by the Holy Spirit to enable all who were intended by the Father to get saved to now receive Jesus as lord!

 

You either have no idea what Calvinism is, or you deliberately misrepresent it.

 

Genuine faith … is granted by God … faith is a supernatural gift of God … faith is not something that is conjured up by the human will but is a sovereignly granted gift (cf. Php 1:29) (MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus, 172-173).

Faith is God’s gift. In no degree could a natural man produce faith. It is utterly beyond him. Let us adore the God who gives it (Wells, Faith, 55).

Faith and repentance are divine gifts and are wrought in the soul through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit (Steele, The Five Points of Calvinism).

Behold the actual bogus doctrine...

And here is what I said:
Right, the non-elect cannot understand the gospel according to Calvinism's "total spiritual inability" but we should "give" the Gospel as if salvation is available to all. Got it...
And folks, note the disavowal of another Calvinist doctrine, "God knows whom would be His very own elect..." should say (according to the bogus views of Calvinism) God know who are His very own elect..." And according to the bogus doctrine, the "chosen ones" are regenerated with irresistible grace and given faith, so the witness of others is unnecessary to salvation. On and on the disavowal of their doctrine goes with every post...

 

i know what Calvinism teaches in regards to salvation, do you?

 

Since you present misinformation over and over, your claim is dubious. I presented published sources for my view, you cited nothing specific.

 

Except thnat your postings do nor ever reflect what we Calvinists really do believe!

 

And pray tell me, what is the contradiction between knowing the Biblical facts that
1. The natural man cannot understand the Gospel (1 Corinthians 2:14),
2. God knows those who are His (2 Timothy 2:19), and
3. Preaching the Gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15)?

The truth of the Gospel is that
1. God opens the hearts of His people to understand the Gospel (Acts of the Apostles 16:14).
2. The Lord Jesus will not lose even one of those whom God has given Him to save (John 6:39)
3. We do not know who the elect are. As Spurgeon used to say, if God painted a yellow stripe down the backs of the elect so we could recognize them, we would only preach to them. But since He hasn't, we preach the Gospel to all, and assure them that if they will believe they will be saved (1 Corinthians 1:21).

And BTW, you have not the faintest idea what Calvinism is, and that you can pull three quotations out of some book or other is no indication to the contrary.

 

As I said, they run away from their doctrine.

 

First Martin avoids actually addressing Calvinist doctrine. Did you see Limited Atonement explained? Nope
Next 1 Corinthians 2:14 is misrepresented, it does not say the natural man cannot under the gospel or some of the other spiritual things. The idea is the natural man cannot understand "spiritual solid food (meat)."
Did anyone say God does not know who are His? Nope so obfuscation on display
According to Calvinism, the "world (humanity) cannot understand the gospel.
God uses people as witnesses to open their hearts to the gospel. All "opened her heart, or ears or eyes" means is providing the means for comprehension. When the gospel is presented to those "open to God's word" it is heard and understood. See Matthew 13 once again.
No one said Jesus will lose anyone given (placed spiritually into Him). More obfuscation.
Calvinism declares individuals who never heard or understood the gospel will be given faith such that they are saved. Think unborn babies going to heaven.

Were the three statements addressed? Nope. Just another denial of Calvinism's doctrines.

Genuine faith … is granted by God … faith is a supernatural gift of God … faith is not something that is conjured up by the human will but is a sovereignty granted gift (cf. Php 1:29) (MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus, 172-173).

Faith is God’s gift. In no degree could a natural man produce faith. It is utterly beyond him. Let us adore the God who gives it (Wells, Faith, 55).

Faith and repentance are divine gifts and are wrought in the soul through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit (Steele, The Five Points of Calvinism).

 

First Van avoids actually addressing my post. Did you see any reference to my post? Nope.

Next 1 Corinthians 2:13 is misrepresented. It says that 'The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them because they are spiritually discerned.' It does of course say, in the clearest terms that the natural man cannot understand the Gospel, because the Gospel is something spiritual. 'Solid food (meat)' is nowhere mentioned in the text. More obfuscation on display.

Van fails to understand argument. More ignorance on display.

Van pretends that kosmos always means 'humanity. More obfuscation (and ignorance) on display.

Look at Acts of the Apostle 16:14 again. Did Paul open Lydia's heart to heed the things he spoke to her (i.e. the Gospel)? Nope. Did any of Paul's companions open her heart? Nope Did she open her own heart? Nope. Who opened Lydia's heart? God did. More obfuscation and denial of the plain meaning of the text.

Yes, and unless God does that, people will remain in darkness, because that is what they prefer (John 3:19).

Only if God opens the heart to receive it. It is God who makes the soil good. It does not make itself good. Those who hear, receive and fall away were never Christ's sheep (1 John 2:19).

Is there any scriptural evidence that 'given' to Christ (John 6:39 etc.) is the same as being 'placed spiritually into Him' (and exactly where is that in the Bible?)? Nope. More obfuscation on display.

Did either Van or I ever mention infants dying? Nope. More obfuscation on display.

The three statements are great; they were the only good part of your post. the problem is that you don't understand them, have wrenched them out of their context.

 

Meaning: "Everyone to the right of me is hyper".

 

Not everyone, but if the cap fits, you go right ahead and wear it.

 

Probably pretty accurate way of stating it.