Calvin on 1 John 2:2

[jne1611]

Calvin's Words

Last, but not least:
And to give his life a ransom for many. Christ mentioned his death, as we have said, in order to withdraw his disciples from the foolish imagination of an earthly kingdom. But it is a just and appropriate statement of its power and results, when he declares that his life is the price of our redemption; whence it follows, that we obtain an undeserved reconciliation with God, the price of which is to be found nowhere else than in the death of Christ. Wherefore, this single word overturns all the idle talk of the Papists about their abominable satisfactions Again, while Christ has purchased us by his death to be his property, this submission, of which he speaks, is so far from diminishing his boundless glory, that it greatly increases its splendor. The word many (πολλῶν) is not put definitely for a fixed number, but for a large number; for he contrasts himself with all others. And in this sense it is used in Romans 5:15, where Paul does not speak of any part of men, but embraces the whole human race.

I am not trying to be troublesome. You that know me, know I believe in a limited design of the atonement. All I am saying is that Calvin is ambiguous in many instances on his position concerning this subject.

 

[Allan]

Allan,

I remain puzzled at your actions on this subject. You mislead and have been shown that you mislead on this subject many times. The subject.."John Calvin did not believe in L".

Why do you keep doing this? If you do not believe in "L"...fine. But please stop trying to mislead others by quoting part of what Calvin, and know full well, if you read all the works of Calvin it does not show your view you try so hard to paint. Nor should you do this to any one else for that matter. It is just not becoming of your church.

It helps if you keep your facts straight.
Not once have I been proved wrong regarding Calvin and the 'L'.
But you have trouble understanding the argument I place against it.

Calvin does not hold the 'L' the same way present day Calvinists has turned it, period. He believe Christ died for all men, but Atonement was applied or limited only the Elect through faith.

Your redundant posts of my 'misleading' do not change the FACTS of his own testimony. I'm sorry you can not come to grips with what Calvin actually believed but that is not my problem, it is yours.

 

[Allan]

I am not trying to be troublesome. You that know me, know I believe in a limited design of the atonement. All I am saying is that Calvin is ambiguous in many instances on his position concerning this subject.

THAT is I all I have been saying. I love how others state I mislead or don't know what I'm talking about when Calvins own words are contrary to the strict present day of the 'L'. I have never stated Calvin didn't believe in Limited Atonement, I have said he didn't hold the view of the 'L' of present day Calvinism.

It is simple fact. It doesn't change that Calvin held to predestination, it simply means he held that regardless of the predestination Christ died for all but saved His elect. To the modern Calvinist that makes no sense because it does not line up with what they are taught. But it is what he believed.

 

[Jarthur001]

I have noted before, as a student of Calvin and his works, that his angle differs according to the purpose of the work. At times he appears to hold to limited atonement, and at other times not. It just depends on the context.

I can see why you say this...

If you read closely, you will see that he choose his words carefully on some passages. A statesman of sorts.

Thus my points are thus:

1. ....................When he was relatively more "pressed" for an answer, as in dialogue with the Lutherans , he tended to give a "stricter" more "5 point" answer.

I agree. And this would be my point I try to make when this subject comes up. If you read his work...all of it..one cannot deny he believed all 5 points. It all depended on the angle which he looked at the text.


Calvin’s own words will be found in the points below. Notice ...if one would only read the general statements on the atonement by Calvin, as seen in the 1st 7 statements, one may get the idea he did not believe it was limited………..

Actual Remission.
Basic to Calvin’s understanding of the saving work of Christ is his ascription to Christ of the work of prophet, priest and king.

1 As a prophet ‘he was anointed by the Spirit to be herald and witness of the Father’s grace . . . he received anointing, not only for himself that he might carry out the office of teaching, but for his whole body that the power of the Spirit might be present in the continuing preaching of the Gospel’.
Institutes II.xv

2 As a king ‘he will be the eternal protector and defender of his church’.
Inst. II.xv.2

3 As a priest ‘an expiation must intervene in order that Christ as a priest may obtain God’s favour for us and appease his wrath. Thus Christ to perform this office had to come forward with a sacrifice’.
Inst. II.XV.3

4 God ‘was reconciled to us through Christ’.
Inst. II.xv.6

5 Suppose a man learns that he was estranged from God through sin, is an heir of wrath, subject to the curse of eternal death, excluded from all hope of salvation, beyond every blessing of God, the slave of Satan, captive under the yoke of sin, destined finally for a dreadful destruction and already involved in it; and that at this point Christ interceded as his advocate, took upon himself and suffered the punishment that, from God’s righteous judgment, threatened all sinners; that he purged with his blood those evils which had rendered sinners hateful to God; that by this expiation he made satisfaction and sacrifice duly to God the Father; that as intercessor he has appeased God’s wrath; that on this foundation rests the peace of God with men; that by this bond his benevolence is maintained toward them. Will the man not then be even more moved by all these things which so vividly portray the greatness of the calamity from which he has been rescued?
Inst. II.xvi.2


6 This is our acquittal: the guilt that held us liable for punishment has been transferred to the head of the Son of God (Is. 53:12). We must, above all, remember this substitution, lest we tremble and remain anxious throughout life — as if God’s righteous vengeance, which the Son of God has taken upon himself, still hung over us.
Inst. II.xvi.5


7 By his obedience, however, Christ truly acquired and merited grace for us with his Father. Many passages of Scripture surely and firmly attest this. I take it to be a commonplace that if Christ made satisfaction for our sins, if he paid the penalty owed by us, if he appeased God by his obedience — in short, if as a righteous man he suffered for unrighteous men — then he acquired salvation for us by his righteousness, which is tantamount to deserving it.
Inst. II.xvii.3

*******************

Now read this statements, and when done reread the 1st 7 with new meaning of what "us" and "church" means.

Salvation for the elect alone.

According to Calvin, all and only the elect have their sins remitted.

8 The adoption was put in Abraham’s hands. Nevertheless, because many of his descendants were cut off as rotten members, we must, in order that election may be effectual and truly enduring, ascend to the Head, in whom the Heavenly Father has gathered his elect together, and has joined them to himself by an indissoluble bond.
Inst. III.xxi.7


9 Whence it comes about that the whole world does not belong to its Creator except that grace rescues from God’s curse and wrath and eternal death a limited number who would otherwise perish. But the world itself is left to its own destruction, to which it has been destined. Meanwhile, although Christ interposes himself as mediator, he claims for himself, in common with the Father, the right to choose. ‘I am not speaking’, he says, ‘of all; I know whom I have chosen’ (John 13: 18). If anyone ask whence he has chosen them, he replies in another passage: ‘From the world’ (John 15:19), which he excludes from his prayers when he commends his disciples to the Father (John 17:9). This we must believe: when he declares that he knows whom he has chosen, he denotes in the human genus a particular species, distinguished not by the quality of its virtues but by heavenly decree.
Inst. III.xxii.7

And finally,

10 Through Isaiah he still more openly shows how he directs the promises of salvation specifically to the elect: for he proclaims that they alone, not the whole human race without distinction, are to become his disciples (Isa. 8:16). Hence it is clear that the doctrine of salvation, which is said to be reserved solely and individually for the sons of the church, is falsely debased when presented as effectually profitable to all.
Inst. III.xxii.10

God the Father has gathered the elect indissolubly together in Christ. Salvation is effectual only for the elect. According to Calvin, then, the elect are saved through Christ, all the elect, and only the elect.

2. Given the first observation I deny that one quote from Calvin nails down his position on anything. This is the James White/Dave Hunt debate style tactic that never does justice to a complex position.

I agree 100 %.

3. Calvinists, so described, are adherent to the precepts of "Calvinism" as defined nearly 50 years after Calvin's death. These precepts are generalized - and while I think they do well represent Calvin's positions - are sometimes put forth in a way that Calvin would have found simplistic

I agree with this also in many cases. Today we find this true as well. However I must add that the non-Calvinist misrepresents Calvin's position even more. In fact I would go as far as to say that most non-Calvinist do not understand the truth of Calvinism but base it on something they have read that stands against Calvinism.

 

[Jarthur001]

It helps if you keep your facts straight.
Not once have I been proved wrong regarding Calvin and the 'L'.
But you have trouble understanding the argument I place against it.

Calvin does not hold the 'L' the same way present day Calvinists has turned it, period. He believe Christ died for all men, but Atonement was applied or limited only the Elect through faith.

Your redundant posts of my 'misleading' do not change the FACTS of his own testimony. I'm sorry you can not come to grips with what Calvin actually believed but that is not my problem, it is yours.

once again....read my post above.

 

[TCGreek]

I'll add my 2 cents here...

TC and I have agreed to disagree on this before. And for the record I like Allan's angle here.

I would say that one must realize first that Calvin was a man who wrote theology. He was not inspired to write scripture - and his work is not scripture. Duh? Well yes we all would agree to this. But there is an extra dimension to this admission - namely that as a human his writings are not only fallible but at times not completely consistent. And is this not the case with any person? I shudder to think that someone would write down and bind up all of my sermons and statements and then look for incinsistencies! They would surely find some!

I have noted before, as a student of Calvin and his works, that his angle differs according to the purpose of the work. At times he appears to hold to limited atonement, and at other times not. It just depends on the context.

As it pertains to the passage quoted Calvin did have problems with this stance (that Christ died sufficiently for all but efficiently for the elect) as held by Ursinus and many other Reformed theologians.

He notes in one of his sermons that it is "no small matter to have the souls perish which were bought by the blood of Christ".

Thus my points are thus:

1. Calvin, being a brilliant and sensitive exgete realized the tensions, both scriptural and philosophical, in giving a concrete answer to the question of the nature of the atonement. This is reflected by his many and yet slightly different comments on it. When he was relatively more "pressed" for an answer, as in dialogue with the Lutherans , he tended to give a "stricter" more "5 point" answer.

2. Given the first observation I deny that one quote from Calvin nails down his position on anything. This is the James White/Dave Hunt debate style tactic that never does justice to a complex position.

3. Calvinists, so described, are adherent to the precepts of "Calvinism" as defined nearly 50 years after Calvin's death. These precepts are generalized - and while I think they do well represent Calvin's positions - are sometimes put forth in a way that Calvin would have found simplistic.

1. I grant that is is an overstatement to say that Calvinism is the gospel, though I mean to say that Calvinism captures the heart of the gospel: "Salvation is of the Lord."

2. Irrespective of the writings of Calvin, I would still be a five-point Calvinist, for it is biblical.

 

[jne1611]

THAT is I all I have been saying. I love how others state I mislead or don't know what I'm talking about when Calvins own words are contrary to the strict present day of the 'L'. I have never stated Calvin didn't believe in Limited Atonement, I have said he didn't hold the view of the 'L' of present day Calvinism.

It is simple fact. It doesn't change that Calvin held to predestination, it simply means he held that regardless of the predestination Christ died for all but saved His elect. To the modern Calvinist that makes no sense because it does not line up with what they are taught. But it is what he believed.

That is what is confusing about it for me. He seems to swing back and forth with it. (Although, I am not saying he was trying to create such confusion) But it is there, and impossible to deny. And what I have seen, he had a great opportunity to give his reason for making those comments if he really felt different about them, but he did not. And some of them are as ambiguous as they can get as to their meaning. And I would say if a modern commentator made them, he would be branded an Armenian.

 

[Jarthur001]

Last, but not least:
And to give his life a ransom for many. Christ mentioned his death, as we have said, in order to withdraw his disciples from the foolish imagination of an earthly kingdom. But it is a just and appropriate statement of its power and results, when he declares that his life is the price of our redemption; whence it follows, that we obtain an undeserved reconciliation with God, the price of which is to be found nowhere else than in the death of Christ. Wherefore, this single word overturns all the idle talk of the Papists about their abominable satisfactions Again, while Christ has purchased us by his death to be his property, this submission, of which he speaks, is so far from diminishing his boundless glory, that it greatly increases its splendor. The word many (πολλῶν) is not put definitely for a fixed number, but for a large number; for he contrasts himself with all others. And in this sense it is used in Romans 5:15, where Paul does not speak of any part of men, but embraces the whole human race.

I am not trying to be troublesome. You that know me, know I believe in a limited design of the atonement. All I am saying is that Calvin is ambiguous in many instances on his position concerning this subject.

What is it that you do not like about this statement by Calvin?

 

[Jarthur001]

Here is another on of Calvin's statements that leads me to doubt his understanding on this subject.
Also we ought to have good care of those that have been redeemed with the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. If we see souls which have been so precious to God go to perdition, and we make nothing of it, that is to despise the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ."
Sermon on Ephesians 5:11-14

1st off....
please show me where he said this.

This is not found in his books, so I'm not sure where it came from.

 

[Jarthur001]

Here is another:
The four reasons, whereby Paul doth carefully prick forward the pastors to do their duty diligently, because the Lord hath given no small pledge of his love toward the Church in shedding his own blood for it. Whereby it appeareth how precious it is to him; and surely there is nothing which ought more vehemently to urge pastors to do their duty joyfully, than if they consider that the price of the blood of Christ is committed to them. For hereupon it followeth, that unless they take pains in the Church, the lost souls are not only imputed to them, but they be also guilty of sacrilege, because they have profaned the holy blood of the Son of God, and have made the redemption gotten by him to be of none effect, so much as in them lieth. And this is a most cruel offense, if, through our sluggishness, the death of Christ do not only become vile or base, but the fruit thereof be also abolished and perish; and it is said that God hath purchased the Church, to the end we may know that he would have it remain wholly to himself, because it is meet and right that he possess thoes whom he hath redeemed. Commentary on Acts 20:28

again...what is wrong with this statement?

 

[jne1611]

What is it that you do not like about this statement by Calvin?

The citation of Rom. 5:15.
Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.


He specifically says that in this verse the word many refers to the "whole human race".

I am just putting forth verses that I have studied & referenced him that he seems to indicate a persuasion that is conflicting when it comes to "L". There are many times he has made statements that are to say the least about them "far out" from the position held by most Calvinists today.

 

[jne1611]

1st off....
please show me where he said this.

This is not found in his books, so I'm not sure where it came from.

It is in his sermons on Ephesians published by Banner of Truth.

 

[jne1611]

Here is another:
The four reasons, whereby Paul doth carefully prick forward the pastors to do their duty diligently, because the Lord hath given no small pledge of his love toward the Church in shedding his own blood for it. Whereby it appeareth how precious it is to him; and surely there is nothing which ought more vehemently to urge pastors to do their duty joyfully, than if they consider that the price of the blood of Christ is committed to them. For hereupon it followeth, that unless they take pains in the Church, the lost souls are not only imputed to them, but they be also guilty of sacrilege, because they have profaned the holy blood of the Son of God, and have made the redemption gotten by him to be of none effect, so much as in them lieth. And this is a most cruel offense, if, through our sluggishness, the death of Christ do not only become vile or base, but the fruit thereof be also abolished and perish; and it is said that God hath purchased the Church, to the end we may know that he would have it remain wholly to himself, because it is meet and right that he possess thoes whom he hath redeemed. Commentary on Acts 20:28

again...what is wrong with this statement?

Unless you believe it is possible for one whom Christ died for to perish, then, it is not a good statement for a "L" position. Can the fruit of Christ's death perish? Not if you believe "L" as the Calvinist understands it.
And this is a most cruel offense, if, through our sluggishness, the death of Christ do not only become vile or base, but the fruit thereof be also abolished and perish

That does not sound like "L" theology.

 

[jne1611]

Quote. "The only Lord God, or, God who alone is Lord. Some old copies have, “Christ, who alone is God and Lord.” And, indeed, in the Second Epistle of Peter, Christ alone is mentioned, and there he is called Lord. — But He means that Christ is denied, when they who had been redeemed by his blood, become again the vassals of the Devil, and thus render void as far as they can that incomparable price. That Christ, then, may retain us as his peculiar treasure, we must remember that he died and rose again for us, that he might have dominion over our life and death." End Quote.

This comment is from his commentaries on Jude verse 4.
I don't know how you feel about this comment James, but as far as I am concerned. It is completely out of the line of "L" thinking.

 

[GeneMBridges]

Quote. "The only Lord God, or, God who alone is Lord. Some old copies have, “Christ, who alone is God and Lord.” And, indeed, in the Second Epistle of Peter, Christ alone is mentioned, and there he is called Lord. — But He means that Christ is denied, when they who had been redeemed by his blood, become again the vassals of the Devil, and thus render void as far as they can that incomparable price. That Christ, then, may retain us as his peculiar treasure, we must remember that he died and rose again for us, that he might have dominion over our life and death." End Quote.

This comment is from his commentaries on Jude verse 4.
I don't know how you feel about this comment James, but as far as I am concerned. It is completely out of the line of "L" thinking.

Ahem, Calvin believed in mixed church, not regenerate church membeship. For him, apostates were members of the church, so were considered "redeemed" by Christ. This is a statement about apostates, not a statement about universal redemption.

 

[jne1611]

Ahem, Calvin believed in mixed church, not regenerate church membeship. For him, apostates were members of the church, so were considered "redeemed" by Christ. This is a statement about apostates, not a statement about universal redemption.

That may be what you say he meant, show proof he believed that redemption was just coming to church.
And he did not say "Redeemed by the church" He said "Redeemed by his blood".

I know of no Calvinist that believes that coming to church is equal to being redeemed by the blood of Christ. If there is. Then they are dead wrong.

 

[GeneMBridges]

The citation of Rom. 5:15.
Rom 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.


He specifically says that in this verse the word many refers to the "whole human race".

I am just putting forth verses that I have studied & referenced him that he seems to indicate a persuasion that is conflicting when it comes to "L". There are many times he has made statements that are to say the least about them "far out" from the position held by most Calvinists today.

And for Calvin "whole human race" was an eschatological category referring to the elect with respect to those represented by Christ.

Calvin states clearly in your selected commentary that "here a larger number (plures) is not contrasted wtih man (multis), for he is not dealing with the number of men.

In his view, unlike your interpretation of him here, the number of men was not germane to the issue in this text. Paul here is simply saying that both Adam and Christ represent others, not themselves. A similar comment appears in his comments on Hebrews. 9:28 and Mt.20:28. The contrast in that comment is not to ALL, but ONE.

Calvin's comments are also very like Bucer's here. Bucer was clearly a limited redemtionist.

 

[jne1611]

And for Calvin "whole human race" was an eschatological category referring to the elect with respect to those represented by Christ.

Calvin states clearly in your selected commentary that "here a larger number (plures) is not contrasted wtih man (multis), for he is not dealing with the number of men.

In his view, unlike your interpretation of him here, the number of men was not germane to the issue in this text. Paul here is simply saying that both Adam and Christ represent others, not themselves. A similar comment appears in his comments on Hebrews. 9:28 and Mt.20:28. The contrast in that comment is not to ALL, but ONE.

Calvin's comments are also very like Bucer's here. Bucer was clearly a limited redemtionist.

Again. That is your take. I know what he said in his comments. But my point is that it conflicts with his application of that particular verse in the comments cited.

To be sure, I am not arguing with you on the "L", because I believe in a limited design in the atonement, but all I am saying is that Calvin held a view that conflicts with itself in some of his comments. Why you know as well as I do, that if you or I wrote a book and said something like the Vessels of the Lord redeemed by the blood of Christ had become the vessels of the Devil, we would get run out of the church condemned as Armenians. And when questioned, we said that we were referring to coming to church. They would run us out of town.

Some of the best studies I have done, Calvin has been a big help, but this OP is whether he actually believed in the "L" as do Calvinists today. I have not said he did not to my knowledge. But I do say, he does not set it out there to be decided easily that he did or did not. When switching between his institutes & his commentaries.

 

[GeneMBridges]

That may be what you say he meant, show proof he believed that redemption was just coming to church.
And he did not say "Redeemed by the church" He said "Redeemed by his blood".

That would require a full discussion of the trajectory of his soteriology - a subject that you seem to be unwilling here to engage for you're simply quoting Calvin without that consideration. I 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?

I did not say that they were redeemed by the church. Rather, I stated that apostates, for Calvin, were part of the church.

For Calvin, who believed in a mixed membership, the members of the church were to be considered pastorally as having been redeemed by the blood of Christ.

See his comments on 2 Timothy 4:1 and Acts 20:28

Also in 1 Peter 2:10 he speaks of apostates as members of the visible church, therefore to be considered as having been redeemed.

 

[GeneMBridges]

Again. That is your take. I know what he said in his comments. But my point is that it conflicts with his application of that particular verse in the comments cited.

1. If that's "just my take on it," why is that not equally applicable to yours?

2. You know what he said in his comments, yet you omitted the part that says the number of men is not germane. Why is that?