Calvin on 1 John 2:2

[webdog]

Amen. That is what we believe and preach.

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

 

[Allan]

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.

 

[TCGreek]

You are the one that made the original quote from Calvin are you not?

Calvin says:
I allow this to be true: "That Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect.
As I said previously, even the non-Calvinist believes that.

1. Calvin believed in Particular Atonement:

But it is by Isaiah he more clearly demonstrates how he destines the promises of salvation specially to the elect (Isa 8:16); for he declares that his disciples would consist of them only, and not indiscriminately of the whole human race. Whence it is evident that the doctrine of salvation, which is said to be set apart for the sons of the Church only, is abused when it is represented as effectually available to all. For the present let it suffice to observe, that though the word of the gospel is addressed generally to all, yet the gift of faith is rare.—Institutes of the Christian Religion (emphasis mine0

2. If I have misconstrued Calvin at 1 John 2:2 on Particular Atonement, the above quote should settle the fact that he believed and taught Particular Atonement.

 

[DHK]

1. Calvin believed in Particular Atonement:

2. If I have misconstrued Calvin at 1 John 2:2 on Particular Atonement, the above quote should settle the fact that he believed and taught Particular Atonement.

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"?

 

[Allan]

1. Calvin believed in Particular Atonement:



2. If I have misconstrued Calvin at 1 John 2:2 on Particular Atonement, the above quote should settle the fact that he believed and taught 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'.

 

[webdog]

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.

Exactly :thumbs:

 

[TCGreek]

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"?

1. Less I miscontrue your question, I take it to mean that you want to know what I believe about Particular Atonement and not Calvin at this point.

2. If it is what I believe, by Particular Atonement I mean that Christ shed-blood was sufficient for all but was only applied to the elect ( Matt 20:28). Even some Calvinists would disagree with my wording here. But this is what I believe.

 

[TCGreek]

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'.

1. What do you mean by "imparted through faith?"

2. Are the elect the elect because of foreseen faith? Is that how you are understanding Calvin's use of faith in his Isaiah 8:16 comments?

 

[Allan]

1. What do you mean by "imparted through faith?"

2. Are the elect the elect because of foreseen faith? Is that how you are understanding Calvin's use of faith in his Isaiah 8:16 comments?

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.

 

[DHK]

1. Less I miscontrue your question, I take it to mean that you want to know what I believe about Particular Atonement and not Calvin at this point.

2. If it is what I believe, by Particular Atonement I mean that Christ shed-blood was sufficient for all but was only applied to the elect ( Matt 20:28). Even some Calvinists would disagree with my wording here. But this is what I believe.

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."

 

[TCGreek]

Not in the least. However, salvation comes by or through faith.
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 but in fact we are only finding out about it 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 our faith toward Christ and His Atoning Work.

1. What do you mean by faith? Are talking about foreseen faith and therefore God elect those whose faith he saw in advance?

2. Or are you talking about faith as the result of regeneration and is therefore not foreseen?

 

[TCGreek]

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."

What do you mean that it is effacious to them that believe? Is this believing foreseen or a result of regeneration?

 

[Allan]

1. What do you mean by faith? Are talking about foreseen faith and therefore God elect those whose faith he saw in advance?

2. Or are you talking about faith as the result of regeneration and is therefore not foreseen?

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.

 

[TCGreek]

1. I think you guys may have misunderstood me. I'm a five point Calvinist, who believes that Christ died only for the elect, who are effectively drawn, regenerated, giving faith to respond, is justified, adopted, and in on the road to glorification through sanctification.

2. When I say Christ blood is sufficient for all, I am only appealing to the fact that shed-blood is that of the Son of God, but we know that he has limited it to the elect, not because of foreseen faith, but because God chose to love them and exercise his sovereign, electing grace upon them.

3. I don't know how I can be a non-Calvinist, then.

 

[TCGreek]

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.

1. So I know what you really believe. My questions were only meant to know exactly what you believe.

2. So you are not a Calvinist, a five pointer, I mean. That's ok. Press on, brother.

 

[Allan]

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.

 

[Allan]

1. So I know what you really believe. My questions were only meant to know exactly what you believe.

2. So you are not a Calvinist, a five pointer, I mean. That's ok. Press on, brother.

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.

 

[Allan]

oops, typo:

2. I do not hold that faith is gift of God, like salvation, for salvation.

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.

 

[Rippon]

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 ?!

 

[Allan]

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:

So you said it and not him. That is fine.

But what you are speaking to is from his tract and what I am addressing is His Commentary which I quoted DIRECTLY from.

IF they are one and the same then you have a great deal to reconcile regarding his writting

Editted in >>>
I think you meant Post #23 since it is the only one that seems to distinguish the quote.

So, if Calvin did say this, then Calvin was at odds with his own view or maybe he changed them. But either way the Commentary (which was written to be read along side his Institutes) on Mat 26:28 is in direct opposition to what you say he stated.

Please cite me where I can find this tract. Or the name of it so I can look at it.

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.