Do Calvinists and Arminians differ on prayer?
Perhaps if we had an "All things John Calvin" forum, we would discuss his views on prayer. But, this is a Baptist board so the controversy is regarding atonement and election.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Calvin
- Thread starter agedman
- Start date
Perhaps if we had an "All things John Calvin" forum, we would discuss his views on prayer. But, this is a Baptist board so the controversy is regarding atonement and election.
You don't believe the controversy over Divine Providence (which was the issue that arose from with Calvinism) extends to the concept of prayer? What about the concept of evil? Did you know that the issue that divides Calvinism and Arminianism did not being with election but with the "problem of evil"?
I did not mean prayer as "the" topic that should should be at the forefront of the debate. What I mean is that there are some narrow minded Christians on both sides of this issue that believe the controversy is limited to atonement and election.
Thanks for the clarification, Jon.
You're welcome.
I always wondered if this section would not be best if within the "Baptist Only" section. As it stands, it could encompass a very wide range of topics (which is great) but from a very wide background (which I think would be better if narrowed to Baptist). That said, it's usually Baptists here anyway.
I guess the Presbyterians have more important things to do and the Methodists just don't care.
Saved-By-Grace
Well-Known Member
John Calvin's own words on the Extent of the Atonement, which is NOT "Limited" in any way. From his commentaries:
Mark 14:24
"Which is shed for many. By the word many he means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race"
John 3:16
"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."
Colossians 1:14
"He says that this redemption was procured through the blood of Christ, for by the sacrifice of his death all the sins of the world have been expiated"
Post-Calvin "Calvinists" wrongly assumed that John Calvin ever taught "Limited Atonement", which is own words clearly refute. On John 3:16, Calvin uses language that is opposite to what "Calvinists" would use, "all men without exception", instead of "without distinction", when speaking of Jesus' death for "the world" and "all".
Robert Dabney, who was a Calvinist, has this to say on the use of "world" in John 3:16;
"In Jno. iii, 16, make 'the world' which Christ loved, to mean 'the elect world', and we reach the absurdity, that some of the elect may not believe and perish" (Systematic Theology, page 525).
This verse itself, which has been called, "the Gospel in a nutshell", shows beyond any doubt to the honest mind that is more interested in what the Holy Bible has to say on the extent of the Atonement, than personal "theology"; that Jesus Christ indeed died for "the whole human race", from Adam till the last person, "without exception", as rightly put by Calvin. However, there are those who through a blatant disregard to Biblical Truth, distort what the Word of God actually teaches, and imposes their own warped ideas, as though they were based on the Word of God, and teach that Jesus only died for a "select few". Their misguided reasoning being, that if Jesus died for the "whole world", then surely the "whole world" must be saved. Such is their nonsense! There is the thing called "repentance and acceptance" of what Jesus has done for the sinful human race. Unless a sinner goes to Jesus for forgiveness and accepts what He has done for him, they can never be forgiven.
Mark 14:24
"Which is shed for many. By the word many he means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race"
John 3:16
"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."
Colossians 1:14
"He says that this redemption was procured through the blood of Christ, for by the sacrifice of his death all the sins of the world have been expiated"
Post-Calvin "Calvinists" wrongly assumed that John Calvin ever taught "Limited Atonement", which is own words clearly refute. On John 3:16, Calvin uses language that is opposite to what "Calvinists" would use, "all men without exception", instead of "without distinction", when speaking of Jesus' death for "the world" and "all".
Robert Dabney, who was a Calvinist, has this to say on the use of "world" in John 3:16;
"In Jno. iii, 16, make 'the world' which Christ loved, to mean 'the elect world', and we reach the absurdity, that some of the elect may not believe and perish" (Systematic Theology, page 525).
This verse itself, which has been called, "the Gospel in a nutshell", shows beyond any doubt to the honest mind that is more interested in what the Holy Bible has to say on the extent of the Atonement, than personal "theology"; that Jesus Christ indeed died for "the whole human race", from Adam till the last person, "without exception", as rightly put by Calvin. However, there are those who through a blatant disregard to Biblical Truth, distort what the Word of God actually teaches, and imposes their own warped ideas, as though they were based on the Word of God, and teach that Jesus only died for a "select few". Their misguided reasoning being, that if Jesus died for the "whole world", then surely the "whole world" must be saved. Such is their nonsense! There is the thing called "repentance and acceptance" of what Jesus has done for the sinful human race. Unless a sinner goes to Jesus for forgiveness and accepts what He has done for him, they can never be forgiven.
Last edited by a moderator:
Romans 5:18
18So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
" He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him. [174]" --John Calvin
"Calvin is not a Calvinist" -Calvinist Logic
18So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
" He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him. [174]" --John Calvin
"Calvin is not a Calvinist" -Calvinist Logic
Saved-By-Grace
Well-Known Member
Thanks for sharing this important text, and Calvin's comments. It is rather sad that so many who call themselves "Calvinists", and teach "Limited Atonement" as though Calvin himself taught it, continue in their assertions even when proven wrong! This teaching has no place in Christian theology, as it is NOT taught anywhere in the entire Bible. It is also interesting, that the early Church, till the time of Augustine, never taught "Limited Atonement". In fact, Augustine's own teaching on the Atonement was indeed heretical! He didn't do any better on his "double predestination", which also is alien to the Holy Bible.
Saved-By-Grace
Well-Known Member
what are the "Prayers" for?
While it is true we can’t see a definite statement as articulated almost 50 years after his death, we can see what he believed to the extent it is evident through his works.
This is why I suggested extending beyond concise statements to look at what Calvin actually taught. In his prayers John Calvin appeals to our adoption and continued reliance on God’s calling, on God Himself keeping us in Christ and granting that we not be so hardened as to resist Him. Or consider his sermons where he declares God saves at his pleasure, not all men are drawn to salvation, God shoes himself merciful to us when he enlightens us by his Spirit that we might be drawn to the faith of his gospel.
I don’t believe that one can earnestly look at Calvin’s writings yet walk away doubting he would have affirmed both a universal provision (that Christ is the Savior of all mankind) and a limited atonement (especially those who believe; that Jesus - being God - purposed his work to save those who would believe).
This is why I suggested extending beyond concise statements to look at what Calvin actually taught. In his prayers John Calvin appeals to our adoption and continued reliance on God’s calling, on God Himself keeping us in Christ and granting that we not be so hardened as to resist Him. Or consider his sermons where he declares God saves at his pleasure, not all men are drawn to salvation, God shoes himself merciful to us when he enlightens us by his Spirit that we might be drawn to the faith of his gospel.
I don’t believe that one can earnestly look at Calvin’s writings yet walk away doubting he would have affirmed both a universal provision (that Christ is the Savior of all mankind) and a limited atonement (especially those who believe; that Jesus - being God - purposed his work to save those who would believe).
communion
Is it because prayer is left out when disagreements foam?
I have watched and read how men of note go there separate ways, each blustering how the other is wrong. But rarely have I heard one pray for the other.
Such neglect James 3:
13Who among you is wise and understanding? Let him show by his good behavior his deeds in the gentleness of wisdom. 14But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart, do not be arrogant and so lie against the truth.15This wisdom is not that which comes down from above, but is earthly, natural, demonic. 16For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every evil thing. 17But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy.18And the seed whose fruit is righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.
Wesley and Whitefield, towards each other, may be an exception.
The most clear statement I find from Calvin himself, is his comment on 1 John 2:2 -
"2And not for ours only He added this for the sake of amplifying, in order that the faithful might be assured that the expiation made by Christ, extends to all who by faith embrace the gospel.
Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretense extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself. Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation. They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world. For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only true salvation of the world."
1 John 2 Commentary - John Calvin's Commentaries on the Bible
I have encountered writings where just a part of the above comment is quoted, out of context, in an attempt to make Calvin say just the opposite of what he wrote.
Saved-By-Grace
Well-Known Member
It is quite clear that John Calvin and others who have followed him, are in error. The Apostle John wrote:
"and he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world"
It is very clear from the entire Epistle, that John wrote to ALL believers, and not just the Jewish ones, as some wrongly suppose. There is not a shred of evidence from this Epistle to say that this Epistle was only for the Jewish believers, and not the entire Church of believers.
It is equally clear that the "our sins" must refer to ALL believers, both Jewish and Gentile, in which case "the whole world" must also refer not to the "believers" whom he is writing to, but the lost, or as Calvin puts it, "reprobate", world of sinners, the entire "human race". Calvin's own comments which I have given from Mark, John and Paul, clearly show that he believed that Jesus' death was indeed for "everyone without exception", which can only mean the entire human race, which is what the Bible teaches. Unless Calvin is very confused in what he believes and contradicts himself.
Look at more of the Apostle John's writings as well:
"If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." (John 15:19, KJV)
"I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word." (John 17:6, KJV)
"And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation" (Rev 5:9, KJV)
"And now they sing a new song. "It is fitting," they say, "that Thou shouldst be the One to take the book And break its seals; Because Thou hast been offered in sacrifice, And hast purchased for God with Thine own blood Some out of every tribe and language and people and nation" (Rev 5:9, Weymouth)
Rev. 5:9 shows how John means "world". "Some out of every tribe, and language and people and nation". The word "some" does not mean many or few, just a certain number. By his blood Christ purchased men "out of" the various groups, not all of them. He died for the elect as mentioned in John 15:19; 17:6
Saved-By-Grace
Well-Known Member
No one is disputing the fact that the Greek "κόσμος", does mean in instances "not all the world". However, we must determine this by the context where the word is used, and also others uses of the word when used in the same sense. Its like "αἰώνιον", where it does not always mean "forever, without end", and is used in a limited sense. We cannot conclude by this that all its uses must have the same meaning. It is very clear that passages like John 3:16, and 1 John 2:2, "world" and "whole world" means in the context, "the entire human race". It is only because of peoples theological bias, they press the meaning of the word to mean something else, when the context is against what they believe. You still have to deal with Calvin on John 3:16, where is language is very clear that he did not believe that "world" is limited in any way to just the "elect". A fact well noted by a Calvinist, Robert Dabney.
Prof. Robert L. Dabney writes extensively and very deeply. You can't take one section and lift it from the whole and make it seem something Dabney did not teach. The following is from Chapter 35 of his Systematic Theology:
"Conclusion.
This seems, then, to be the candid conclusion, that there is no passage the Bible which asserts an intention to apply redemption to any others than the elect, on the part of God and Christ, but that there are passages which imply that Christ died for all sinners in some sense, as Dr. Ch. Hodge has so expressly admitted. Certainly the expiation made by Christ is so related to all, irrespective of election, that God can sincerely invite all to enjoy its benefits, that every soul in the world who desires salvation is warranted to appropriate it, and that even a Judas, had he come in earnest, would not have been cast out.
But the arguments which we adduced on the affirmative side of the question demonstrate that Christ’s redeeming work was limited in intention to the elect. The Arminian dogma that He did the same redeeming work in every respect for all is preposterous and unscriptural. But at the same time, if the Calvinistic scheme be strained as high as some are inclined, a certain amount of justice will be found against them in the Arminian objections. Therefore, in mediis tutissime ibis . The well known Calvinistic formula, that "Christ died sufficiently for all, efficaciously for the Elect," must be taken in a sense consistent with all the passages of Scripture which are cited above."
Dr. Dabney goes on to explain in what way the atonement concerns every individual, elect and non-elect.
"God’s Design and Result Exactly Co Extensive.
There is no safer clue for the student through this perplexed subject, than, to take this proposition; which, to every Calvanist, is nearly as indisputable as a truism; Christ’s design in His vicarious work was to effectuate exactly what it does effectuate, and all that it effectuates, in its subsequent proclamation. This is but saying that Christ’s purpose is unchangeable and omnipotent. Now, what does it actually effectuate? "We know only in part," but so much is certain.
(a.) The purchase of the full and assured redemption of all the elect, or of all believers.
(b.) A reprieve of doom for every sinner of Adam’s race who does not die at his birth (For these we believe it has purchased heaven). And this reprieve gains for all, many substantial, though temporal benefits, such as unbelievers, of all men, will be the last to account no benefits. Among these are postponement of death and perdition, secular well being, and the bounties of life.
(c.) A manifestation of God’s mercy to many of the non elect, to all those, namely, who live under the Gospel, in sincere offers of a salvation on terms of faith. And a sincere offer is a real and not a delusive benefaction; because it is only the recipients contumacy which disappoints it.
(d.) A justly enhanced condemnation of those who reject the Gospel, and thereby a clearer display of God’s righteousness and reasonableness in condemning, to all the worlds.
(e.) A disclosure of the infinite tenderness and glory of God’s compassion, with purity, truth and justice, to all rational creatures.
Had there been no mediation of Christ, we have not a particle of reason to suppose that the doom of our sinning race would have been delayed one hour longer than that of the fallen angels. Hence, it follows, that it is Christ who procures for non elect sinners all that they temporarily enjoy, which is more than their personal deserts, including the sincere offer of mercy. In view of this fact, the scorn which Dr. William Cunningham heaps on the distinction of a special, and general design in Christ’s satisfaction, is thoroughly shortsighted. All wise beings (unless God be the exception), at times frame their plans so as to secure a combination of results from the same means. This is the very way they display their ability and wisdom. Why should God be supposed incapable of this wise and fruitful acting? I repeat, the design of Christ’s sacrifice must have been to effectuate just what it does effectuate. And we see, that, along with the actual redemption of the elect, it works out several other subordinate ends. There is then a sense, in which Christ "died for" all those ends, and for the persons affected by them."
http://grace-ebooks.com/library/Robert Dabney/RLD_Systematic Theology.pdf
I suspect that Calvin on John 3:16 meant very close to how R. L. Dabney explains this. Yet, since I know in Rom. 11:11, 12 the word "world" refers to Gentiles as well as Jews, and in this section of John 3, Jesus speaks to "a man of the Pharisees" and "a ruler of the Jews" in v1; then in 10 "a master in Israel". I understand Jesus to be emphatically letting this Jew know that God loves Gentiles as well as Jews.
Saved-By-Grace
Well-Known Member
Yes, but the "entire human race" is made up only of two parts, Jews and Gentiles. If you were a Jew, then you were not a Gentile, and vise-versa. So, the two peoples represent the entire world, as it still does this day, if these two terms are used. You cannot assume from this that somehow God loves only some of the Jews and Gentiles, but can only mean that He loves the WHOLE of both classes of peoples, which make up the entire human race. So, if "God so loved the world", means both Jews and Gentiles, then the meaning can only be, "the human race completely". This is exactly what Paul says in Romans 1:16, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believes; to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile". The two "classes" of the entire human race! There is no way that you can honestly reduce what is meant.
Believing Jews and believing Gentiles constitute the elect. The text does not say all Jews and all Gentiles. The text does not say or indicate each and every person who is or has lived on planet Earth.
Therefore, honestly, there is no way that it can be construed to mean the entire human race.
Calv1
Active Member
Don't mean to be rude but if you studied you'd know. Read "Institutes of Christian Religion", and you'll see.
Also remember TULIP was a response, a response to the 5 Remonstrants. Do you believe in the 5 Remonstrants?