Featured John Calvin vs Calvinism

Yes, I know.

Calvinism has evolved since John Calvin. Like I said, it is just as much indebted to Beza. Limited Atonement is the logical conclusion of Calvinistic Atonement...but Calvin himself did not get there.

 

No, one or the other does not encompass everybody.

Arminianism is of a Calvinist trajectory. The theology was, at one time, within orthodox Calvinism. But even then Calvinism (with Arminianism included) was a minority position.

Within the basic Calvinistic understanding of Atonement there is Calvinism (soteriology), Arminianism, and Amyraldianism.

But there are also Christians who do not hold a basic Calvinistic understanding of Atonement (who reject Calvinism, Arminianism, and Amyraldianism).

 

To be fair, "Calvinism" referred to John Calvin's view of Communion as opposed to Martin Luther's view. Luther coined the term.

 

Calvin did believe in a limited election. He stopped short of placing this under the doctrine of divine sovereignty. Beza, in systemizing the "Institutes" placed salvation under that doctrine.


Limited Atonement is the logical conclusion of Calvin's view of Atonement. Calvinism, however, had not worked itself out to that extent (and wouldn't until after James Arminius' death).

During Arminius' lifetime Arminianism was a sect within Calvinism. Even at Dort some Calvinists objected to Limited Atonement.

These ideas developed after Calvin.

 

No, it doesn't. The OP shows that Calvin had not arrived at Limited Atonement and held a belief to the contrary.

But the OP ignores a lot of what Calvin believed (like a limited view of election). Saying that Christ died for all but God chose only a select group has the same affect - not all can be saved).

And the OP elevated Calvin (or at least your post here) to deny the possibility that John Calvin could have held inconsistent views.


The fact of the matter is that nobody believed Limited Atonement until after Beza. But the actual scope of the Atonement was not an issue during Calvin's lifetime.


A similar argument to the OP would be that the Early Church was not trinitarians because they did not affirm the doctrine of the Trinity. But that doctrine was developed after the Early Church period, so it would be a poor argument.

 

Lol.....nobody is saying otherwise.

 

You don't need to. I never disagreed with you insofar as what John Calvin believed.

I said Calvin believed in a limited election.

Why are you looking for an argument where no argument exists?