Calvin on 1 John 2:2

[jne1611]

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.

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.

 

[GeneMBridges]

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?

 

[jne1611]

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?

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.

 

[jne1611]

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?

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.

 

[GeneMBridges]

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.

 

[jne1611]

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.

 

[GeneMBridges]

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.

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.

 

[GeneMBridges]

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.

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.

 

[jne1611]

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.

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.

 

[jne1611]

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.

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.

 

[jne1611]

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.

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

 

[GeneMBridges]

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.

 

[Allan]

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.

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.

 

[Allan]

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.

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.

 

[Allan]

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

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:

16. For God so loved the world. Christ opens up the first cause, and, as it were, the source of our salvation, and he does so, that no doubt may remain; for our minds cannot find calm repose, until we arrive at the unmerited love of God. As the whole matter of our salvation must not be sought any where else than in Christ, so we must see whence Christ came to us, and why he was offered to be our Savior. Both points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish. And this order ought to be carefully observed; for such is the wicked ambition which belongs to our nature, that when the question relates to the origin of our salvation, we quickly form diabolical imaginations about our own merits. Accordingly, we imagine that God is reconciled to us, because he has reckoned us worthy that he should look upon us. But Scripture everywhere extols his pure and unmingled mercy, which sets aside all merits.

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

That whosoever believeth on him may not perish. It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.

Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all. For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith. Here, too, is displayed a wonderful effect of faith; for by it we receive Christ such as he is given to us by the Father — that is, as having freed us from the condemnation of eternal death, and made us heirs of eternal life, because, by the sacrifice of his death, he has atoned for our sins, that nothing may prevent God from acknowledging us as his sons. Since, therefore, faith embraces Christ, with the efficacy of his death and the fruit of his resurrection, we need not wonder if by it we obtain likewise the life of Christ.

(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.

 

[Allan]

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.

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.