Calvin on 1 John 2:2

Interaction with what?
I have studied Calvin. Not as indepth as you apparently because I usually refer to his commentaries. But non the less, this idea of mixed churches. All Calvinists know that apostates are part of the visible church, "The went out from us" But to take that as being redeemed by his blood is a worse error than what I thought, if that be the case. For that is what Calvin said.

 

I said, "would point out that such a discussion would be one that would require a monograph. The standard one on this subject at present is by Jonathan Rainbow, so it is easier to refer you there. Have you read it? If so, where is your interaction with it?"

Obviously, I'm referring to Dr. Rainbow's monograph. Are you familar with it?

And this is one reason why I'm having a hard time believing you are understanding Calvin properly here, for you've now twice misinterpreted something I stated. If you can't get that right, why should I trust your interpretation of Calvin?

 

It was not the same Scripture cited. That is what I am trying to say. He referred to Rom. 5:15 when commenting on another verse and applied it differently than when he actually commented on Rom 5:15. Check my post and you will see what I am talking about.

 

Give me clearly what I have misinterpreted that you have said. And beside that. And I'll put it this way. Calvin said, "They were redeemed by his blood" My interpretation of Calvin's words is precisely this, "He believed they were redeemed by his blood". No if I misinterpreted him. Then there is no way to get his drift.

 

First, I stated that Calvin believed in mixed membership, etc. and you stated that I stated that he said they were redeemed by the church.

Then pointed to Dr. Rainbow's monograph and asked if you were familar with it and if so, where was your interaction with it, to which you replied "Interaction with what?"

Thus, that is twice you have misinterpreted what I stated.

 

1. I said "He did not say they were redeemed by the Church" You said:
Quote For him, apostates were members of the church, so were considered "redeemed" by Christ.End Quote.
That is what I was addressing. You said "Redeemed" was how Calvin understood apostates in the church.
2. I did not see the If so in your comment about the monograph. Don't know how I missed it.
And even if you are right, I am not saying you are not. I see nothing Biblical in thinking that apostates are redeemed by the blood of Christ in any sense. And I am referring to Calvin and not you. I know nothing of your view.

 

No, for study the trajectory of his whole theology. He was a pastor, and a Paedobaptist at that. If a person gave a credible profession of faith, they were certainly considered to be "redeemed." In Reformed theology, remember, we draw a distinction between a credible and saving profession. For pastoral duties, we assume them to be congruent.

And in Paedobaptist theology to be baptized into the visible church meant one was not considered presumptively regenerate (that would be an error) but that one should be considered having been redeemed by Christ. That's the crux of the Presbyterian view of covenant baptism.

Eroo, an apostate is "making void" Christ's work and is considered "one redeemed by Christ" as long as he remains in the visible church.

 

And in Romans 5:15 he says plainly:

But observe, that a larger number (plures) are not here contrasted with many (multis,) for he speaks not of the number of men: but as the sin of Adam has destroyed many, he draws this conclusion, -- that the righteousness of Christ will be no less efficacious to save many.

And in CO: 37:267,45:559,45:711 you can see how "whole human race" refers not to every human being, but often to an eschatological category.

 

That's fine. I do not believe that apostates are to be considered Redeemed in any sense. As long as in the visible church, I'll grant you, we cannot know them, but they are as unredeemed while in the church as they are when they leave. But I am not going to debate you on it. I was just putting these up for the OP. But that answers what he must have been thinking when he put those comments down.

 

Like I said, I was not posting the comments from Rom:5:15, I was answering a question from James, on Calvin's comments from I think Matthew where Rom 5:15 is cited. That is why I do not give his comments from Rom 5:15. His use of it in the Matthew comments seems to conflict with his use of it in His comments on the actual verse in his Romans commentary.

 

I do appreciate your input on that point of Calvin's theology of the mixed church. I will look into it.

 

The issue here is what that term "human race" means. Like I stated:

In CO: 37:267,45:559,45:711 you can see how "whole human race" refers not to every human being, but often to an eschatological category.

 

Hello again Gene, Long time no see. I haven't been on the blog site 'Strange baptist fire' in while so I haven't talked with you in some time. :wavey:

I'm curious about something you said regarding Calvin believing in 'mixed membership'. Do you think Calvin just allowed anybody to be apart of the physical Church regardless of salvation, they could all be members?

OR

Did Calvin believe that in the Churches there are those 'claim to be saved' but who are not truly born again, though we do not know specifically who they are or that they are not yet apparent?

If the first then, well - that will bring up lots of questions because of his position of the church being only the redeemed (which I agree with)

If the later then I can agree, but makes me wonder about 'your statement' of Calvin believed in mixed churches, as though you do not agree with that position.

 

This might have answered my question a bit (I over looked it, sorry).
However, how could Calvin consider an apostate of the church to be 'redeemed' in ANY sense of the word, if he is addressing the fact these apostates are actaully lost and therefore NOT redeemed.

He never states the 'redeption' he equates to them to be something only "considered". IF anything it should show the 'redeption' was never apart of them.

Besides if he did not hold to regenerate church membership but all may come and be apart of the church, HOW could you assume he held they were all "considered redeemed" if they were not all regenerate in membership. That is tant amount to the Catholic doctrine of the Holy Mother Church - IMO.

 

I don't agree here. If you go to for example John 3:16 he speaks of the human race and the world as all mankind and not eschatological.
see for yourself
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom34.ix.iii.html
Here is an excerts that I'm refering to:

He shows that the "world" the Father loves is the Human Race. Notice a little further He clearly establishes this a little later:

(emphasis mine)

Here Calvin states That God extends the PROMISE OF LIFE UNIVERSALLY TO ALL, we see then either Calvin did beleived Christ died for all or he was 'all' mixed up. Becuase in order for the promise to have any value, Christ would have had to die for those to whom the promise is offered or would be a complete and utter lie.

Yet as stated by others, this is not the Present day Calvinistic view of the Atonement. So in Calvins summation Human Race and World mean just that - all of mankind.

 

I would say it gives 'potential' view of what he was thinking. It is funny that Calvin is eloquent and yet straight forward enough in most everything else but here you have to have people interpret for you.

But as I stated and have continued stating, it does not mean he DIDN'T hold to the Limited but that his view was different than present day Calvinists.