Calvin Was A Five-Pointer?

[Rippon]

Allan , your idea of Christ dying for all yet applying His salvation to some is in error .

I had quoted this one a while back , but it bears repeating . It's from a tract on the Lord's Supper against the position of Hesshusius .

The first thing to be explained is how Christ is present with unbelievers , to be the spiritual food of their souls , and in short the life and salvation of the world . as he adheres so doggedly to the words , I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ which was not crucified for them , and how they can drink the blood which was not shed to expiate their sins ?

 

[Allan]

Allan , your idea of Christ dying for all yet applying His salvation to some is in error .

I had quoted this one a while back , but it bears repeating . It's from a tract on the Lord's Supper against the position of Hesshusius .

The first thing to be explained is how Christ is present with unbelievers , to be the spiritual food of their souls , and in short the life and salvation of the world . as he adheres so doggedly to the words , I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ which was not crucified for them , and how they can drink the blood which was not shed to expiate their sins ?

Actually it is from His commentaries :thumbs: :thumbs:

Is is from the "Commentary on the Harmony of the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Volume 3); By John Calvin.

Volume 3? That is a pretty big tract :laugh:

 

[Rippon]

Well , quote away Allan . Don't just say he said thus and such .

Again , some of the words from my last Calvin quote which should put this nonsense that Calvin was a Universalist to bed :.. how can the wicked EAT THE FLESH OF CHRIST WHICH WAS NOT CRUCIFIED FOR THEM AND HOW CAN THEY DRINK THE BLOOD WHICH WAS NOT SHED TO EXPIATE THEIR SINS ?

Can it be made any plainer that John Calvin believed in a definite atonement ?

 

[Allan]

Well , quote away Allan . Don't just say he said thus and such .

Again , some of the words from my last Calvin quote which should put this nonsense that Calvin was a Universalist to bed :.. how can the wicked EAT THE FLESH OF CHRIST WHICH WAS NOT CRUCIFIED FOR THEM AND HOW CAN THEY DRINK THE BLOOD WHICH WAS NOT SHED TO EXPIATE THEIR SINS ?

Can it be made any plainer that John Calvin believed in a definite atonement ?

Then you have done nothing but proved Calvin was inconsistant a best dear brother. I give many places in Calvins commentaries (and there are others still) where he elaborates in detail like the one in the Mat 26:28 passage. No amount of "look the other way" will negate 'his own statements.

I'm not bashing him, I'm simply quoting HIM from his own works. Therefore he DID SAY...

 

[Allan]

Well , quote away Allan . Don't just say he said thus and such .

Again , some of the words from my last Calvin quote which should put this nonsense that Calvin was a Universalist to bed :.. how can the wicked EAT THE FLESH OF CHRIST WHICH WAS NOT CRUCIFIED FOR THEM AND HOW CAN THEY DRINK THE BLOOD WHICH WAS NOT SHED TO EXPIATE THEIR SINS ?

Can it be made any plainer that John Calvin believed in a definite atonement ?

One more thing: Where is THIS quote above found from Calvin. IF it is not from Calvn but you, then Calvin did not say it.

 

[Rippon]

Just look at post # 21 again Allan , your eyesight is failing , or your memory ( both ? ) .

 

[Allan]

Just look at post # 21 again Allan , your eyesight is failing , or your memory ( both ? ) .

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.

 

[Rippon]

Sigh . Read carefully . Your answer is in post #21 .

 

[Allan]

Sigh . Read carefully . Your answer is in post #21 .

I have read it. Please read carefully post # 19. They are direct contradictions. Unless of course he is speaking of the atonement having been applied and having the wicked partake in the ordance of the Lords Supper of which (at present) they have no part. But that is only "unless..."