Calvin on 1 John 2:2

So maybe we are more calvinists than the "non free willers"?

 

:laugh: I get a kick out of your one liners :laugh:
But Truth is Truth no matters what it is labeled.

 

Sometimes I think that Calvin's words are highly misconstrued. I will address that later. However, could you please define what you mean by "particular atonement"?

 

Yes, Calvin holds to Particular Atonement (or Specific Redeption) in relation to whom the Atonement will actaully be imparted through faith. This does not negate the biblical fact of Christ dieing for the whole of humanity, just as the Law demanded the offering of the Atonement Sacrifice in the OT for ALL of Israel. Not all of Israel was redeemed (saved), only those who received it by faith. And yet the Atonement Sacrifice was made on behalf of them all.

He is the propitiation for our sins, and not ours only, but the sins of the Whole World.

Do a look at how John uses that term "whole world" in context. You will find it is never a reference to the redeemed but the 'wicked'.

 

Exactly :thumbs:

 

Not in the least. However, salvation comes by or through faith and I beleive from his works Calvin acknowledges this as does scritpure <<-- Edited In:
It is by grace you are saved THROUGH Faith...
The redemptive work of Christ is completed but is only appropriated to those who have/will believe, otherwise we are saved regardless of if one believes or not. So we are in fact we are only finding out about the fact we are already saved in due time. (or for those who die not believing or having faith in Christ - they will find out when they get into heaven and realize God still saved them regardless of faith).

The work of Christ regarding Atonement is done, yes, but it must be applied via faith. If it was applied at his death and resurrection, then all the elect are actaully saved now and have no need for faith toward Christ. This is a view many Primitive Baptist hold, and makes faith useless. It is great if you have it but not necessary. It makes regeneration in the Calvinistic perspective a pointless means.

We are not saved unless we appropriate faith toward Christ and His Atoning Work. Otherwise you are saved without faith.

 

Then what you believe is not much different from what a non-Calvinist believes, and that is that Christ died for all the world, but his work is only efficacious to them that believe. The wording is only slightly different but in essence the belief is the same. This is not strictly a Calvinist belief and certainly is not "limited atonement."

 

It doesn't matter which view one would hold to. IF the Atonement is already applied to you (the elect), then you have no need for faith and or regeneration for you are saved already making both faith and regeneration unnecessary.

 

Remember this is about John Calvin and him believing in Particular Atonement or not.

I have displayed a couple places from Calvins Commentaries that show he believed that Christ DID die for all man kind but that salvation via the atonement is specific towards Gods elect only since they alone are to receive it "through faith".

The question to be asked now is :

Did Calvin beleive the 'L' as espoused today in Calvinism?

Editted in >>> He beleived Christ did in fact die for all. In his commentaries he states regarding many verses that Christ died for man kind. But his Institutes only are specific as to whom His atoning work is to be applied to. One must postualte or assume that Calvin did not believe Christ died for 'all' since his commentaries speak specifically and decidedly AGAINST that position. The work of atonement was for all, just as the OT Law declared it to, but it was only applied to those of faith.

 

I know what you asking, but you already know that I'm not a 5 point Calvinist from many of our previous discussions.

1. I don't hold the Regeneration before faith.
2. I do not hold that faith is gift of God, like salvation, for salvation.
2a.I DO believe that God enables us to beleive/faith and that without His divine intervention man would not, nay could not believe, period.

 

oops, typo:

emphasis mine

It should be "like salvation is for example".

and just below it should have the sentence:
"However, this is my stance on scritpure..."
and then the numbering sequence.

12 hours of work can make you cross-eyed.

 

Allan , you are more than cross-eyed . You are calling me a liar because I said that you charged me of making things up . ( Follow that folks . I am supposed to be a liar because I never made things up .) You say I am wrong . You insist that you never accused me of making things up . Look at the facts , then apologize .

Allan from post#16 : "Rippon you do not have to lie to prove a point . I have never , (sic) stated you 'made up some of the things Calvin actaully (sic) said .' "

Allan was addressing a post called : "Calvin Was a Five-Pointer" . I had quoted from a tract of Calvin's on the Lord's Supper against the position of Hesshusius . In the tract Calvin went on about the fact that Christ wasn't crucified for , nor did He shed His blood to expiate the sins of the wicked .That of course runs counter to his contention that Calvin did not believe in specific redemption .

In post # 25 Allan said : " If it [ the quote -- Rip ] is not from Calvn (sic) but you , then Calvin did not say it ."
In post #27 Allan said : So you said it and not him . That is fine ."

I had made no mention of the context of Calvin's statements one way or another nor anything about a third volume of his etc.

Stay on tract Allan and do not use the "L" word so frivolously . Aren't you supposed to be a Pastor ?!

 

You just proved my point Rippon. I DID NOT ACCUSE YOU of making up something Calvin said. You neglected the ENTIRE conversation (including the context of posts) where I was trying to figure out IF YOU said "this is what Calvin believed" or if Calvin ACTAULLY said it.

I will address one point of your deception here with Post #27 in full:

Emphasis embolded is mine. I was trying to distinguish between you 'interpretation' of Calvin and Calvins own words. You can see in the posting there you getting frustrated because I didn't see if it was you who stated it or Calvin because I KEPT ASKING about it. And yes you did make mention of the context of the quote you gave "one way or another" because you were TRYING to prove Calvin believed in your version of Limited Atonement, which he did not.

However, it was "I" who made mention of the quote being in his third volume set of the Harmony of the Gospels and stated it as such.

You have got to be the most contentious, divisive, and condesending person I have ever met on the BB, and that is saying something - especially regarding scripture. So PLEASE STOP. Deal with what the OP is about and stop with the childishness.