Featured John Calvin vs Calvinism

Because it gives place to the enemies of God and The Word of God
to say the most Anti-Christ puke known to the inhumanity of man,
such as:

I strongly suggest that we leave all the puking to be reserved for Jesus;

"I will spue thee out of my mouth" Revelation 3:16b.
O

Calvin simply makes an unthinkingly thoughtless continuation foul
of having begun with an O.K., and appropriate INVITATION
"to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life", which is perfectly Biblical
with that INVITATION being known to Theologians as
"The General Call" or "the Outward Call",

Calvin follows that through and is oblivious to the actual import of the word;

by skipping through them and making an assumption
as to what "the whole world", signifies from God's point of view,
by first flubbing and "adding" "whole" to the verse he is referring to;

"To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself"
2 Corinthians 5:19a,

and, then, of course, missing God's meaning of "the world of the Gentiles",
as being what He customarily calls "the world", in the Bible, along with all
the Jewish writers in history up to that time.

Then, afterwards, Calvin is seen to double-down, by first impulse,
making the standard, well-intended and Biblical INVITATION TO ALL:

,

however, again,
the ASSUMPTION of THE INVITATION being ANSWERABLE by Lost Man,
or that "A PROVISION HAS BEEN MADE FOR EVERY MAN"
is going somewhere, blindly, that the Bible never takes us.

In fact, THE INVITATION or "GENERAL", and "OUTWARD CALL"
...ARE...NEVER...ANSWERED...BY...A...LOST...SOUL.

THIS CALL, OF ITSELF, IS ALWAYS INEFFECTIVE.

To Israel God said: "When I called, ye did not answer" (Isa. 65:12).

The call referred to here was an outward call similar to the call now under discussion. Because of man's depravity, the preaching of the gospel alone is never sufficient to bring him to Christ. He needs more than an outward call.

The gospel, (Rom. 1:16);
"is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth"

but "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God;
for they are foolishness unto him, and he cannot know them,
because they are spiritually judged" (1 Cor. 2:14).

Man must be enabled to turn from sin and believe on Christ.
Jer. 13:23; John 12:39,40; 6:44,65.

And God Enables those that He gave to the Son,
and who are the same Elect ones Jesus shed His blood for,
particularly and specifically.

please see:

Defending Definite Atonement.

If that is what Calvin said,
it is quite an EMBELLISHMENT to what God actually said, isn't it?

“Which is shed for many.

By "the word many he means"

DOES NOT EQUAL:

"not a part of the world only,
but the whole human race”

 

Ye do infinitely wrongly say, "Calvin rightly says"...

"Calvin understood what the Bible says." A whole lot.

Not this time.

"Judas was present for the Lord’s Supper, and actually took part..."

Which any other lost soul might do and MEANS NOTHING.

Nope.

Jesus goes on to clarify, qualify, and restrict exactly what He meant.

Just as the Bible always goes on to clarify, qualify,
and restrict exactly what it means by words like "all", "is", "world", etc.,

The lost soul about whom Jesus said, "one of you is a devil"
was known to Jesus, from Eternity Past.

John 6:64;
"But there are some of you that believe not.

"For Jesus knew from the beginning
who they were which believed not,
and who it was that should betray him."

John 6:70, 71;
"Jesus answered them,
Did not I choose you, the twelve,
and one of you is a devil?"

"Now he spake of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot,
for he it was that should betray, him, being one of the twelve."

John 13:2,21,27
"And supper being ended,
the devil having now
put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son,
to betray him; …"

"it seems plain that Judas did receive the Lord’s supper,
did eat of that bread and drink of that cup;",
meaning? = exactly nothing.

Christ said, "Behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me
is with me on the table."

"Judas was not only at the passover, but at the Lord's supper,"

meaning? = .....nothing.

Not a drop. Drop-Dead, Full-Stop wrong.

Eternally incorrect.

Hopelessly disconsolate.

John 13:18
"I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen:
but that the scripture may be fulfilled,
He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me."

John 17:12
"While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name:
those that thou gavest me I have kept,
and none of them is lost,
but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

Nupe.

Misconstruedoroma.

 

None of this that is said obligates God
to provide a provision for their deliverance.

"And, He does not and has not, apart from those whom He said,
"For he saith to Moses,

"I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion."
Romans 9:15.

The overwhelming evidence from Scripture
is that Christ came to save a very definite number of people
(those given to him by the Father).

Great stuff at:

The Doctrine of Limited Atonement*.

In this regard, see the following texts:

• 
  
  • Matt. 1:21 “And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”

• 
  
  • Matt. 20:28 “… just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

• 
  
  • Matt. 26:28 “For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”

• 
  
  • John 10:11, 15 “I am the good shephed. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep. As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.”

• 
  
  • Acts 13:48 “Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.”

• 
  
  • Acts 20:28 “Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.”

• 
  
  • Rom. 8:32-34 “He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.”

• 
  
  • Eph. 5:25-27 “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that He might present it to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish.”

• 
  
  • Heb. 2:17 “Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.”

• 
  
  • Heb. 9:15, 28 “And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. So Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.”

• 
  
  • Rev. 5:9 “And they sang a new song, saying: You are worthy to take the scroll, and to open its seals; for You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation.”

*They go into all this below. It's GREAT!

TONS of SCRIPTURE.

The following survey may help you
in tracing the purpose and scope of Christ’s saving work.

"1. The Bible describes the purpose of Christ’s work as the full salvation of his people (that is, actual salvation, not just the possibility of it):

"The Bible tells us that Christ came to actually save sinners, not to allow the success of His work to be determined by sinners.

1a. "The death of Christ actually reconciles sinners to God (remember that in each of these passages the author is writing to the Church of true believers).

1b. "The death of Christ actually justifies the believer because His shed blood was the propitiation for sin and was acceptable to God. Redemption is the actual setting free from the bondage of sin by the blood of Christ to serve the living God.

1c. "Regeneration by the Holy Spirit is necessary for us to have true faith, and thereby to be saved. The gift of the Holy Spirit to regenerate and sanctify is actually given to all whom Christ died for.

"2. There are a number of Bible passages that give us a glimpse of the purpose of Christ in fulfilling the covenant with His Father made before the foundation of the world. In summary, Jesus laid down His life for those whom the Father had “given” to Him. Read John 6:35-40 and John 17 carefully.

"3. Jesus is conscious of laying down His life for “His sheep.”
Those who are not believers are not “His sheep” (Jn. 10:26).

"4. In the High Priestly prayer of Christ, Jesus does not pray for the world in general, but for those who were given to him by his Father.

"5. Christ “justified” those for whom He died (Rom. 5:9).

"If Christ bore the sins of all men without exception, then all men are justified. If all men are justified, then they receive Christ by faith and are at peace with God (Rom. 5:1).

"All who are justified are likewise glorified (Rom. 8:30).

"It is clear from the Bible as well as from the world in which we live
that many live and die at enmity with God and are lost eternally.

"If Christ died for all, then all would be justified, and none would be lost.

"We see from the Bible and our world that this is not true."

 

"Nothing LIMITED in the extent of the Death of Jesus Christ
here by John Calvin!"

Right: "here by John Calvin!" That's it.

Not the final word on it, in the least.

"Men" are known to have been mistaken, at times, believe it or not.

To be called “Calvinists” is derisive, contemptuous ridicule, or mockery.

“Calvinists” don't generally call themselves “Calvinists”
other than as a colloquialism where it is understood in common use,
and then, only begrudgingly, in remorsefulness, and regretful self-castigation.

Those who embrace the 5-TULIP-points in The Doctrines of Grace,
are not believing,
"the UNBIBLICAL HERESY,
that Jesus Christ only died for the “elect”, at all;

they believe the Bible Doctrine
that "Jesus Christ only died for the “elect”.

Those who form their doctrine from words like "all", "is", "world", etc.,
and do not (or "can not"?) take under consideration
any sense of those words meditatively, prayerfully,
or even virtually any manner whatsoever,

than the one determination that they have degreed
concerning them, may need to be
considerably shortsighted in their evaluation,
from the standpoint of honesty.

Dead issue.

We're simply Bible-believing children of God, first and foremost.

We have been called worse than "CALVINISTS", however,
you can beat your life on that.

"Ana-Baptists", for example. No historic Baptist-Doctrine-like believers
were ever, "Re-Baptizing" those who came to them
from other religious organizations who had been "immersed" before.

They were simply "Baptizing" them, by the Authority of God
vested in Jesus' New Testament churches,
and were in no sense, "Re", or "Ana-Baptistizing".

It's just one more misnomer.

Why not? It's all through the Book. Saturated with it.

That's the Divine Interpretation.

Double Jeopardy is an inexcusable abominable blaspheme.

BEHOLD!

I can go with what you actually did inadvertently say, above,
to just rearrange the two phases for clarity:

"the Inspired Word of God clearly Teaches"
"that Jesus did not die for the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE..."

Thankyouverymuchandhaveaniceday

 

I disagree. Although the word Calvin liked to use was "gratuitous election".

 

Is this what you mean that John Owen "was adamant about the absolute warrant anyone has to come to Christ"?

That if we say that we believe Jesus' Atonement was "Limited" to the Elect,
that there appears to be an inconsistency in offering an invitation of the Gospel to anyone and everyone?

As if there is somehow a discrepancy
and apparent lack in the sincerity of God's general call when preaching
a command and invitation to repent and "come to Jesus" for Salvation
through the Gospel?

A good Baptist fellow, T.P. Simmons, had some thoughts on that,
in his "Systematic Study of Bible Doctrine".

Thus, I thought I would just c&p some of this about that.

My premise is that not only is the Gospel
to be sincerely preached and offered to everyone for them
to "repent of their sins toward God and believe
in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ to save their soul,

but that it is the immediate duty of all people everywhere
who hear the Gospel
to accept that call to repent and believe the Gospel. Acts 17:30.

While, "Election has to do with the purposing and planning of salvation.
The atonement has to do with the provision of it." (per the O.P.)

"1. THE CALL IS THROUGH THE PREACHING OF THE GOSPEL.

"It was by means of the gospel that Jesus called sinners to repentance. Today every presentation of the gospel is a call to men to forsake sin and trust Christ.

"The preaching of the gospel is also properly attended by a setting forth of man's need of salvation and of his duty and responsibility under God to repent and believe (Acts 17:30).

"There should also be the earnest entreaty to men to be reconciled to God
(2 Cor. 5:20)

and an invitation to all that labor (Matt. 11:28),

and are athirst (Isa. 55:1; John 7:37; Rev. 22:17)...."

"3. THIS CALL, THEREFORE, IS GENERAL.

"By this we mean that it is not confined to the elect (Matt. 22:14).

"We are commanded to preach the gospel to all.

"This call is intended for all men, though all do not hear it.

"This is true just as all men are commanded to repent (Acts 17:30),
even though all men do not hear this command...."

"5. THIS CALL IS SINCERE.

"Arminians object that the Calvinistic system of doctrine makes a general call insincere.

Sincere means "being in reality as in appearance.
Intending precisely what one says or what one appears to intend."

Having defined the term under discussion, we are now prepared to examine into the exact grounds of this objection.

"Three Calvinistic teachings are pointed out as rendering a general call insincere.

"They are:

"(1) The teaching that man by nature is unable to turn from sin to Christ.

"Arminians say if the case with the natural man were such as Calvinists represent it, and this were fully known to God, then God could not be sincere in inviting men to come to Christ...."

"(2) The teaching as to God's elective purpose to save only a portion of Adam's race.

"Arminians say if God has purposed to save only a portion of Adam's race, then He cannot sincerely invite all men to come to Christ for salvation...."

(3) The doctrine of a limited atonement.

"This was touched on, above, in relation to
the sincerity of God's general call through the gospel.

However we give it further brief notice.

"If one is going before a large number of people to offer to each one of them a ten-dollar bill, and he has inerrant knowledge before hand that only a hundred out of that number will accept his offer, need he in order to make a sincere offer to all have more than one hundred ten-dollar bills?

"Surely not.

"Knowing that he has a sufficient number to supply all that will accept the offer, he can most freely and sincerely say,

"Let every one of you that desires a ten-dollar bill come to me
and I will give you one."

"Is it not manifest to all who can think logically that, in a case such as is described above, the failure of all the people except the hundred to receive a ten-dollar bill would be due to their refusal of the offer, and not to lack of provision?

"God's general call is in appearance no more than it is in reality.

"And He appears to intend no more than He does actually intend.

"This does not appear as something that all men can respond to nor as something that will enable men to come to Christ or that will necessarily impel them to come.

"Nor does this call appear to affirm that God has made a futile provision of salvation for those who persist in unbelief.

"In this call God appears to intend that all men are welcome if they will come; that all who come will be received.

"He actually intends just this.

"It is just as much a Bible truth that all who come to Christ will be saved
as it is that only the elect will be saved.

"We can heartily and gladly subscribe to the New Hampshire Declaration of Faith in saying that:

"nothing prevents the salvation of the greatest sinner on earth except his own inherent depravity and voluntary refusal to submit to the Lord Jesus Christ."

"In other words, these are the things that send the sinner to Hell."

 

Yes. And I think it is confusing because the logical process would be that if some of the people walking around are people who Christ did not die for then you cannot logically claim that the offer to them at a later time is "real", as far as salvation is concerned.

What I think happened was that Owen argued theologically against the Arminians but was honest enough to explain later some of these things that would come up such as "is there a true offer of the gospel to everyone". I have never seen a satisfactory argument that explains how both can logically be true at the same time.

 

Yep, sure did.

"Men" are known to have been mistaken, at times, believe it or not".

It actually is not the least bit certain from this latest example anything conclusive, at all.

Must less to get all excited about, as if it really is:

"Another very clear passage
showing that Calvin without any doubt, believed and taught
that Jesus Christ died for EVERY SINGLE SINNER FROM ADAM,
WITHOUT ANY EXCEPTIONS!"

Sort of looks to me more like Calvin just said,
"redemption was procured through the blood of Christ,
for by the sacrifice of his death all the sins of the world have been expiated."

What if, at the time of this writing, Calvin had acquired enough book learning in his life,
to be aware of the secular, Jewish, and Bible History and had acquired the acumen,
to have become aware, that when he said, "all the sins of the world",

Calvin very clearly showed that Calvin without any doubt, believed and taught
that for EVERY SINGLE SINNER Jesus Christ died for, WITHOUT ANY EXCEPTION!,
were meant by him, when he said, "all the sins of the world", to be:
"The Gentiles particularly, and God's elect among them."

That is, that he was actually saying,
"redemption was procured through the blood of Christ,
for by the sacrifice of his death all the sins of
"The Gentiles particularly, and God's elect among them," have been expiated."

Calvin might have very well known all about what you already learned,
at: John Calvin vs Calvinism

that:

"The Gentiles are often called "the world", and "the whole world",
and "the nations of the world", as distinct from the Jews;

see Romans 11:12.

Well?

Let's see: Romans 11:12;

here's 11, first: 11:11; "I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid:
but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles,
for to provoke them to jealousy".

then, here's 12; 11:12; "Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world,
and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles;
how much more their fulness?

11:13 "For I speak to you Gentiles,
inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office."

So, we see a little bit of the mentioning of the Gentiles there in Paul's writing to the Romans.

I've known young kids that,
"you have to talk to them for an hour, before you can figure out if they have any sense."

I don't know why that popped into my mind this early morning,
but let's see if we can make any Bible sense out of what is noted there, Romans 11:12.

Oh, no wait, I DO KNOW what popped that into my mind this early morning.

I have a verse, next here, copied down, Romans 11:12, and a very quick,
simple comment made afterward that solves the whole issue of what "the world"
is intended to mean and is referring to in the Bible, on many, many, many occasions,
but it's too easy.

"you have to talk to them for an hour, before you can figure out if they have any sense."

I still go into the most lengthy diatribe, in a desperate effort
to somehow sink in the plain sense of Scripture, to be a tremendous blessing
to anyone reading it that wants to meditate on it, and get the Eternal Word into their soul,
to use it to Worship God, and so that can take a few minutes and thus, there is a lot below.

This one scripture and the following couple of comments IS TOO EASY.

HOW IS SOMEONE SUPPOSED TO TRY AND ACTUALLY "MAKE SENSE"
OUT OF SOMETHING SO SUCCENT AND SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND?

SOMETIMES, IT'S JUST TOO EASY!

Romans 11:12;
"Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world,
and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles;
how much more their fulness?"

By "the world", in "the riches of the world,"
as is clear from the next clause, is meant the Gentiles; "the riches of the Gentiles."

Therefore, dear friends, none other than The Bible, itself, has just done something.

Right quick and easy, in front of God and everybody,
THE BIBLE EQUATED "the world" AS BEING DEFINED AS....?.... "the Gentiles".

Want to see God draw out His guns and fire again? Too quick for ya?

Romans 11:12;
"Now if the fall of them (the Jews) be the riches of the world,
and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles."

"The world" = "The Gentiles".

THAT'S IT! YOU CAN QUIT READING NOW. IT'S OVER.

... JUST...LIKE...THAT...!

Got that? I Hope so. It's good stuff.

see: John Calvin vs Calvinism
...

more?

 

"The world" is another word for "The Gentiles".

Now, for some totally excessive, extra credit, pure blessings for the exuberant reader;

"The Gentiles" were frequently called "the world" by the Jews,

while the Jews reckoned themselves to be "the church",
and all the nations round about them, "the world";

From Romans 11:11-13, there, we see a little background stuff;

"the fall of the Jews issued in the salvation of the Gentiles;
and the salvation of the Gentiles was to provoke the Jews to seek the same mercy,"

Romans 11:11,
"and then follows an improvement and illustration of this end, or event of the Jew's fall,"

Romans 11:12,
"that if the fall and lessening of the Jews were the means of enriching the Gentiles
with the riches of Christ and His Grace, what a Glory must be brought to the Gentiles,
when they should all of them be converted and join them!

"and that the rejection of the Jews was neither total nor final,
the apostle argues from his office, even as an apostle of the Gentiles,
whom he addresses as such,"

Romans 11:13,
"and from Paul's view and end in executing that office,
which was to provoke the Jews to emulate the Gentiles, and so save some of them."

Now, again, briefly in review;

Romans 11:12;
"Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world,
and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles;
how much more their fulness?"

By "the world", in "the riches of the world," in the verse above,
YOU KNOW FOR SURE, as is clear from the next clause,
that by "the world" it is meant the Gentiles; when we see, "the riches of the Gentiles."

"THE WORLD" = "THE GENTILES".

"The Gentiles" were frequently called "the world" by the Jews,

while the Jews reckoned themselves to be "the church",
and all the nations round about them, "the world", of "the Gentiles".

"which observation may serve to illustrate other passages of Scripture;
see John 3:16* (see way below/maybe next post);

"now the fall of the Jews, which was a lessening of the Jews,
was the riches of the Gentiles;

"and the diminishing of the Jews the riches of the Gentiles;

"the number of the true believers in Christ among the Gentiles were very few,
the generality of the Gentiles received him not,
but stumbled at Him, and fell through unbelief;

"but the few Gentiles that did believe were the means of carrying and spreading the Gospel,
which is, "the unsearchable riches of Christ", Ephesians 3:8, in the Gentile world:

"thus at first a persecution being raised against the church at Jerusalem,
the ministers of the Gospel were scattered abroad, and went everywhere preaching the word;

"and afterwards the Jews behaving in a very indecent manner
towards the apostles of Christ, was why the apostles of Christ
turned in a manner wholly to the Gentiles;

"and thus by the means of a few Gentiles, a diminutive company,
of which the Apostle Paul was one, the Gospel, the pearl of great price,
treasure hid in a field, and put into earthen vessels,
was carried into the Heathen world, the Gentiles,
and by it the Gentiles were enriched.

"This handful of Gentile men that went out of Judea,
were the means of converting vast numbers,
large multitudes of souls among the Gentiles,
which may be also designed by "riches":

"this word sometimes signifying plenty, see Romans 2:4;
and also of enriching them with the gifts and graces of the Spirit,
and of directing the Gentiles to Christ, who has durable riches,
treasures of wisdom and knowledge, riches of grace, and riches of glory.

"Now the apostle argues, that if such a small number of the Jews who embraced Christ,
were of so much advantage to the Gentiles, how much more their fulness?

"when converts to Christ among them the Gentiles will be as the sand of the sea,
a nation of the Gentiles shall be born again at once, a
nd all Elect Spiritual Israel will be saved."

see: John Calvin vs Calvinism
...

next John 3:16, where, of course, it mentions "the world".

 

NOW, HERE WE HAVE JOHN 3:16, WHERE IT MENTIONS: "THE WORLD".

WHAT'S IT ALL ABOUT? WHAT COULD IT POSSIBLY ALL MEAN?

John 3:16;
"For God so loved the world, that He gave his only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

WHAT WE KNOW: "For God so loved the world",.... DOES NOT MEAN;

Certainly, by "God so loved the world", not every man in the world is here meant,
or all the individuals of human nature;

"for all "the world" all the individuals of human nature
are not the objects of God's special love, which is here designed,
by "He gave his only begotten Son"
as appears from the instance and evidence of it, The gift of His Son:

"nor is Christ God's gift to every one in "the world";
for to whomsoever He gives His Son,
He gives all things freely with Him; which is not the case of every man in "the world."

"Nor is human nature here intended, by "God so loved the world" (of human nature),
in opposition to, and distinction from, the angelic nature;

"for though God has showed a regard to fallen men, and not to fallen angels,
and has provided a Savior for the one, and not for the other;

"and Christ has assumed the nature of men, and not angels;

"yet not for the sake of all men in "the world", but the spiritual seed of Abraham;

"and besides, it will not be easily proved, that human nature is ever called "the world":

"nor is the whole body of the chosen ones, meant by "God so loved the world"
as consisting of the whole body of the chosen, Elect, Jews and Gentiles,
and not here designed;

"even though the whole body of the chosen, Elect, Jews and Gentiles
are called the world, here;
"For the bread of God is He which cometh down from heaven,
and giveth life unto the world," in John 6:33;

where, "and giveth life unto the world"
means, "the whole body of the chosen, Elect, Jews and Gentiles,"

"and it is an Eternal blessing to them, since
"the whole body of the chosen, Elect, Jews and Gentiles"
are the objects of God's special love, and to them Christ is given,
and they are brought to believe in Him, and they shall never perish,
but shall be saved with an Everlasting Salvation;

see: John Calvin vs Calvinism

next, What We Know the Bible is referring to by, "God so loved the world".

 

THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT by, "For God so loved the world",

THE BIBLE IS REFERRING TO: the Gentiles particularly,
and God's elect among them, are meant;

The Gentiles are often called "the world", and "the whole world",
and "the nations of the world", as distinct from the Jews; see Romans 11:12,

We often meet with this distinction, Israel, and the Gentile nations of the world;

on those words, "let them bring forth their witness",
that they may be justified, Isaiah 43:9 (say (b)
the doctors) these are Israel; "or let them hear and say it is truth",
these are "the nations of the world."

And again (c),

"the holy, blessed God said to Israel, when I judge Israel,

I do not judge them as "the nations of the world":''

"and so in a multitude of places: and it should be observed,

that our Lord was now discoursing with a Jewish Rabbi,

and that he is opposing a commonly received notion of theirs,

that when the Messiah came, the Gentiles should have no benefit or advantage by Him,

only the Israelites;

The Jews believed that: "so far should the Gentiles be
from the blessings of the coming Messiah, that,

according to the Jew's sense,

the most dreadful judgments, calamities, and curses, should befall the Gentiles;

yea, hell and eternal damnation.

"There is a place (they say (d),) the name of which is "Hadrach", Zechariah 9:1.

This is the King Messiah, who is, "sharp and tender";

sharp to "the nations", and tender to "Israel".''

And so of the "sun of righteousness", in Malachi 4:2, they say (e),

"there is healing for the Israelites in it: but the idolatrous nations shall be burnt by it.''

And that (f).

"there is mercy for Israel, but judgment for the rest of the nations.''

And on those words in Isaiah 21:12, "the morning cometh",
and also the night, they observe (g),

"the morning is for the righteous, and the night for the wicked; the morning is for Israel,

and the night for "the nations of the world."'

And again (h),

"in the time to come, (the times of the Messiah,) the holy, blessed God

will bring "darkness" upon "the nations", and will enlighten Israel,

as it is said, Isaiah 60:2.''

Once more (i),

"in the time to come, the holy, blessed God will bring the nations of the world,
and will cast them into the midst of hell under the Israelites,

as it is said, Isaiah 43:3.''

To which may be added that denunciation of the Jews (k).

"woe to the nations of the world, who perish, and they know not that they perish:

in the time that the sanctuary was standing, the altar atoned for them;

but now who shall atone for them?''

see: John Calvin vs Calvinism
...

Next, there is "a narrative" given which is speaking "as if it is Jesus talking to Nicodemus"
and it is put into a commentary style to show what Jesus was really saying to him.

 

Next, this is a narrative speaking "as if it is Jesus talking to Nicodemus"
and put into a commentary style to show what Jesus was really saying to him.

Now, in opposition to the notions the Jews had
that the Gentiles would meet with judgment from God.,

our Lord addresses this to a:
"man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews",
in John 3:1, and it is Jesus saying to "Nicodemus",

THIS NARRATIVE IN BLUE "AS IF" THIS IS WHAT JESUS WAS SAYING TO NICODEMUS;

"You Rabbis say, that when the Messiah comes, only the Israelites,
who are the peculiar favorites of God, shall share in the blessings that come by,
and with the Messiah;

"and that the Gentiles shall reap no advantage by Him,
being hated of God, and rejected of him:

"but I tell you, "God has so loved the" Gentiles, as well as the Jews,

"that He gave His only begotten Son"; to, and for the Gentiles, as well as for the Jews;

to be a covenant of the people, the Gentiles, the Savior of the Gentiles,
and a sacrifice for the Gentiles;

"a gift which is a sufficient evidence of His love to the Gentiles;
it being a large and comprehensive one, an irreversible and unspeakable one;

"none other than "His own Son" by nature, of the same Essence, Perfections,
and Glory with Him; "begotten by him"
in a way inconceivable and expressible by mortals;

"and "His Only Begotten" One; Jesus, the Object of His Love and Delight,
and in Whom He is ever well pleased; and yet, such is God's Love to the Gentiles,
as well as Jews, that "He has Given Him", in human nature, up, into the hands of men,
and of Justice, and to death itself:

"that whosoever believeth in Him", whether Jew or Gentile,

"should not perish, but have Everlasting Life".

See Gill on John 3:15.


see: John Calvin vs Calvinism

 

In the following statements, Calvin's detractors have these things to say:

"Calvin, they urge, did repeatedly assert universal atonement as is manifested from the following categories of statements culled from the Institutes, the commentaries, the sermons, and the tracts."

a. Christ suffered “for the redemption of mankind”62

or “for the salvation of the human race.”63

He ordained that Christ should be the Redeemer, who would deliver the lost race of man from ruin.64

When he says ‘the sin of the world,’ he extends this kindness indiscriminately to the whole human race, that the Jews might not think that the Redeemer has been sent to them alone.65

He was condemned for our sins…to expiate all sins.66

b. By Christ’s death “all the sins of the world have been expiated.”67

God commends to us the salvation of all men without exception, even as Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world.68

Wipe away the iniquities of the world.69

Burdened with the sins of the whole world.70

Paul makes grace common to all men, not because it in fact extends to all, but because it is offered to all. Although Christ suffered for the sins of the world, and is offered by the goodness of God without distinction to all, yet not all receive him.71

On him was laid the guilt of the whole world.72

Our Lord Jesus was offered to all the world…suffered for all.73

He must be the Redeemer of the world. He must be condemned, indeed, not for having preached the Gospel, but for us He must be oppressed….

He was there, as it were, in the person of all cursed ones and of all transgressors….

He was there in our name….

He forgot Himself in order to acquit us before God….

It was all one to suffer the shames and disgraces of the world, provided that our sins be abolished and we be absolved from our condemnation.74

It is not enough to regard Christ as having died for the salvation of the world: each man must claim the effect and possession of this grace for himself personally.75

God is satisfied and appeased, for he bore all the wickednesses and all the iniquities of the world.76

c. Christ was there in the place of all sinners.

So we see that Jesus Christ was laden with all our sins and iniquities.77

He took upon himself and suffered the punishment that, from God’s righteous judgment, threatened all sinners.78

…found before the judgment seat of God in the name of all poor sinners.79

He willed to appear before the judgment seat of God in the name of all poor sinners (for he was there as it were, having to sustain all our burdens).80

To this we reply that this is indeed an impressive list of statements, which could probably be extended still further. In a number of cases, however, we note that the pronouns “we,” “us,” and the adjective “our” appear in alternation with “mankind,” “all,” etc. even within the quotations presented here,81

and that many times they appear in a larger immediate context that we could not take the space to adduce here.82

Those to whom Calvin refers by such pronouns are not merely members of the human race, but are most commonly those who confess Jesus Christ as their Savior.

The context would be determinative in each instance.

In some cases Calvin makes it clear that he contrasts the broad scope from which the elect are drawn, with a narrow-minded outlook that would restrict salvation to the Jews,83 or to a few people.84

In the context of several of these quotations a major concern of Calvin is to emphasize the exclusivity of the atoning impact of the cross in contrast to those (especially the Roman Catholics) who posited other mediators or other sources of merit.85

Calvin is also concerned to express the sufficiency of the work of Christ so that no one inclined to claim this work and to cast himself or herself on the mercy of God should feel discouraged by thinking that somehow the cross would not avail for him/her.86

This sufficiency is also important with reference to the indiscriminate, universal offer of grace87

and to the personal guilt of those who reject this offer.88

Finally in the context of many of the above quotations expressions are used that connote the actual application or attainment of salvation, not merely an impetration that would still await appropriation:

“our sins are forgiven” or “wiped away,”89

God is “satisfied” or “appeased,”90

“we are justified,”91

“we are exempt from condemnation,”92

“we may partake of the Lord’s Table,”93

we are “saved,”94

“delivered,”95

“restored to life,”96

“reconciled.”97

In this respect, as in so many others, Calvin’s language parallels very closely the usage of Scripture.

(See for instance Rom 5:18; 8:32 ; 1 Cor 15:22; 2 Cor 5:14; Heb 2:9; 1 John 2:2).

Neither the Scripture nor Calvin can be fairly interpreted to teach universal salvation, but the passages advanced as supporting universal atonement simply do not stop there.

It is of course legitimate to distinguish, as Calvin clearly does, between impetration and application,98

but it is improper to separate these, since they always go together. The choice, therefore, is not between universal atonement and definite atonement as properly representative of Calvin’s theology, but rather between universal salvation and definite atonement.

6. Calvin, they urge, far from emphasizing the use of the word “many” rather than “all” in passages like Isa 53:11, 12; Matt 20:28 (Mark 10:45); 26:28 (Mark 14:24); Rom 5:15, 19; Heb 9:28 (as upholders of definite atonement are wont to do), on the contrary does interpret some of them as connoting universality.

“Many” sometimes denotes “all.”99

This word “many” is often as good as equivalent to all. And indeed, our Lord Jesus was offered to all the world.100

“Many” is used not for a definite number, but for a large number…. And this is its meaning also in Romans 5:15, where Paul is not talking of a part of mankind but of the whole human race. 101

The word many does not mean a part of the world only, but the whole human race. 102

He says many meaning all, as in Rom 5:15. It is of course certain that not all enjoy the fruits of Christ’s death, but this happens because their unbelief hinders them. 103

To this we reply that these quotations are indeed remarkable, since a good opportunity to assert definite atonement is here obviously by-passed. What is stated, however, is not different from the passages noted under 5c and the same kind of response would apply.

It is interesting to note that conversely Calvin does occasionally state that “all” refers to some parts of the race rather than the whole of mankind.

No nation of the earth and no rank of society is excluded from salvation, since God wills to offer the Gospel to all without exception…. He is speaking of classes and not of individuals, and his only concern is to include princes and foreign nations in this number. 104

Who does not see that the apostle is here speaking of orders of men rather than of individuals? 105

He expressly declares that salvation comes to all men, having especially in mind the slaves…. He does not mean individuals, but rather all classes of men. 106

When He says all, it must be limited to the elect….107

When He says all it must be referred to the children of God, who are His flock. 108

We are commanded to pray for all…[but] the prayers which we utter for all are still limited to God’s elect. 109

From: John Calvin’s view of Limited Atonement – by Dr. Roger Nicole | Reformed Theology at A Puritan's Mind

 

II. The following arguments may be advanced
to support the contention that definite atonement
more closely approximates Calvin’s view.

1. The strong structure of Calvin’s theology in terms of the divine purpose does appear to imply this specific reference. It seems difficult to imagine that Calvin would posit as the purpose of Christ an indefinite, hypothetical redemption, when at so many other points it is plainly apparent that the specific elective purpose of God is the controlling feature of his outlook.

2. Repeatedly Calvin asserts that God’s purpose of election is ultimate and that we cannot go behind it! To assume a hypothetical redemptive purpose more inclusive than the election of grace is doing precisely what he precludes. It is difficult to assume that Calvin would open himself to such self-contradiction.

Before the first man was created, God in His eternal counsel had determined what he willed to be done with the whole human race.

While we are elected in Christ, nevertheless God reckons us among his own prior in order to making us members of Christ. 110

3. Calvin makes it quite plain that he views repentance and faith and all other recreative benefits of salvation to have been merited for the elect by Christ.

What Christ has accomplished on the cross is not so much to secure the salvability of all humans, as actually to accomplish the salvation of those whom he does redeem.

This point is made very apparent in the whole chapter 17 of Book 2 of the Institutes entitled, “Christ rightly and properly said to have merited God’s grace and salvation for us.”

We may also refer to our note 98 where the relationship of repentance and faith to the saving work of Christ is articulated in Calvin’s spirit.

4. Calvin, as well as the Scripture itself, frequently conjoins in the same sentence certain benefits which accrue only to the elect, with references to the effects or intent of the death of Christ, e.g. “Christ, who died for our trespasses, and was raised for our justification” (Rom 4:25). 111

In this connection it is important to note that there is in Calvin a great prevalence of the use of “we” (and related forms) with respect to those who are viewed as elect and redeemed. 112

5. Calvin, following Scripture, 113conjoins closely the priestly work of Christ in his substitutionary death with this priestly work as intercessor.

First He offered the sacrifice of His body, and shed His blood, that He might bear the punishment due to us; and secondly, that the atonement might be powerful He performed the office of an advocate, and interceded for all who entered this sacrifice by faith. 114

Whenever the death and passion of our Lord Jesus-Christ is preached to us, we must at the same time add the prayer that he made. 115

Now Christ’s intercession is specifically stated to be particular (John 17:9),
and so it is represented by Calvin. 116

This undoubtedly is what has led R. G. Kendall to posit that Calvin assumed a different scope for the oblation and the intercession of Christ.

But this position flies in the face of Calvin’s text, and has not received wide acceptance, even among scholars who believe that Calvin held to universal atonement.

But if oblation and intercession are recognized to be coextensive,
they will both be universal or both be particular.

The clear-cut particularity of intercession becomes therefore a telling argument for the equal particularity of the atonement.

6. Calvin deals with texts which are usually associated with a universal saving intent in a way which shows that he was mindful at that very moment of the particular elective purpose of God.

This is explicitly brought to the fore in the commentaries in Ezek 18:32; John 3:16; 2 Pet 3:9.

In the commentaries and sermons on 1 Tim 2:4 and Titus 2:13
the word “all” is interpreted to refer to “all kinds or classes of men.”

In relation to John 1:29 and 1 John 2:2 the word “world”
is viewed as intending to transcend a nationalistic Jewish particularism.

Similar interpretations are to be found in the Institutes117
and in the Treatise on Predestination. 118

Now we have never met an upholder of universal atonement who would favor such an interpretation.

In fact we have never met one who would hesitate to use all these texts in support of his/her view.

Surely if Calvin held to universal grace, he would not find it suitable, let alone necessary, to provide such explanations for these passages.

In fact, the greater the confidence that such Scriptures do in fact teach universal grace, the stronger the evidence that Calvin did not hold this doctrine, since, according to this view, he would have been led to evade the clear meaning of the texts in order to conform to the demands of his system.

con't #7. - #13.

 

7. The embarrassment which some of Calvin’s universal expressions may cause the upholder of definite atonement may be alleviated by the consideration that Calvin meant to place special emphasis on the indiscriminate call of the gospel. 119

It is certainly in this sense that Calvin himself interprets 2 Pet 3:9
and the same hermeneutic may apply to his own statements.

8. There are in Scripture as well as in Calvin passages
where the particular intent of Christ’s death is stressed.

Christ gave himself for his people (Matt 1:21),

for his friends (John 15:13),

for the sheep (John 10:15),

for his church (Eph 5:23–26; Acts 20:28),

for us (Titus 2:14).

Calvin’s commentaries on these passages, as well as those on John 11:52 and Heb 2:9 reflect this particularity.

9. Calvin’s statement in response to Heshusius, dealing with the participation of unbelievers in the Lord’s Supper and quoted above, 120

deserves special attention: “I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ which was not crucified for them, and how they can drink the blood which was not shed to expiate their sins.”

This appears to be a categorical denial of universal atonement. Bell121

and Daniel122 have tackled this statement and attempted to explain it as reflecting the viewpoint of unbelievers who were not acknowledging the relevance to them of Christ’s work rather than Calvin’s own position.

But then the argument against Heshusius would be very weak, since it was precisely his contention that the unbelievers desecrated the Lord’s Supper by failing to discern the reality of Christ in, with, and under the natural species as well as the universal relevance of his atoning work.

They manifested the latter form of unbelief by failing to appropriate this work in repentance and faith.

10. Calvin follows Scripture in the terms he commonly uses to describe the atoning work of Christ: “reconciliation,” “redemption,” “propitiation.”

To these may be added the term “satisfaction,” not found per se in Scripture, but commonly used by theologians.

All these terms connote an accomplishment that actually transforms the relationship between God and the sinner.

What kind of reconciliation would be this, if estrangement continued and ultimately were to be sealed for eternity?

What kind of propitiation would be this, if God continued to look upon the sinner as a child of wrath?

What kind of redemption would be this, where the captives would remain in bondage after the ransom has been paid?

What kind of satisfaction would be this, where God would not be satisfied but still enact punishment in the day of judgment?

The language of Calvin does not fit a mere potential blessing which remains ineffective pending some performance by the sinner, which would then make it truly operative: it connotes a basic act of God, who then sees to it that it is implemented unto the salvation of all those he purposed to save.

11. Calvin functions clearly with the concept of penal substitution, 123 that is to say Christ on the cross underwent the divine penalty which God would otherwise inflict on the sinner.

Who does not see that if this is so, and if the atonement is universal,
no one will be punished at the last judgment?

But this is contrary to Scripture and to Calvin. It is difficult to imagine that Calvin failed to perceive the necessary link between substitution and definite atonement, or that, having perceived it, he carried on without giving regard to this matter!

12. Calvin’s strong trinitarian view would certainly lead him to recognize a unity of purpose between the three Persons of the Godhead: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

But universal atonement introduces a fundamental disjunction between the universal intent of the Son who gave himself for all and the particular purpose of the Father who elected only some people, and of the Holy Spirit, who confers regeneration, faith, and repentance to the elect only.

Here again it is difficult to imagine that Calvin would remain unaware of such a fatal flaw at the heart of his theology.

13. A historical difficulty appears when we attempt to explain how Reformed thought moved so quickly from Calvin’s alleged endorsement of universal atonement to the very emphatic support of definite atonement by all but one or two of the delegations at the Synod of Dort.

What happened in these fifty-five years to cause the Reformed community to make such a drastic shift?

Usually the name of Beza is associated with this change, but can we really accept that his influence was so very far-reaching that he practically single-handedly reverted the whole trend in Reformed circles, putting himself at loggerheads not only with Calvin, but as it is alleged, with Scripture itself, and this without producing any major work centering on this topic?

Somehow a lot more light should be shed on this area before such an unlikely development can be assumed to have taken place.

Our conclusion, on balance, is that definite atonement
fits better than universal grace into the total pattern of Calvin’s teaching.

John Calvin’s view of Limited Atonement – by Dr. Roger Nicole | Reformed Theology at A Puritan's Mind

Taken in part from the Westminster Theological Journal 47:2 (Fall 1985).

 

You appear to be putting WORDS into Calvin’s mouth that he did not write (and words that HE did not write in the scripture John Calvin is commenting on).

• nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God
  • Every Calvinist that I know would say the same thing (and all but a very very few Arminians). This merely denies Pelagianism and affirms the need for a savior.
• whole world, when he invites all men without exception
  • How does proclaiming the Gospel to all men without exception prove, or even imply, that Jesus ineffectually shed His blood attempting to save (but failed) all men without exception rather than affirming that merely HEARING the Gospel is insufficient to save without an Ephesians 2 work of God to save those predestined for salvation?
• nothing else than an entrance into life
  • It is the “faith in Christ” that grants “entrance into life”, not the mere “invitation”. MANY are called, but few are chosen, and the “faith” is a GIFT from God (not something that we bring to the table).

You appear to be reading into the words of Calvin meaning that is not there. (Not that I give a HOOT about what John Calvin said, any more than I care what any ECF had to say … I have enough to occupy me with what Jesus and the Apostles had to say.)