Calvin

[Calv1]

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.

Also what does Calvin have to do with it? Read the BIBLE, read John 6, in it you have TULIP, all points. "You are UNABLE to come to me", "Unless the FATHER DRAW YOU", "ALL that the Father draw WILL COME", and "he who comes to me I will not cast out". There all 5 points in one chapter.

 

[Calv1]

Sorry for the confusion.
I meant he seemed to paint Calvin as having the view I presented.
I admittedly skimmed the article so if he makes a case for Calvin different than what I shared, feel free to quote the article regarding Calvin's view on atonement.

Those that Christ died for He intercedes for, there is no blurring of the lines. God "Put out sins on Christ...", so if God put our sins on Christ, they were paid for, if God put all men's sins on Christ, then all will go to Heaven, and right now Christ is interceding for Kim Jun Il and everyone on the planet.

I know you brother know this is not complicated, Christ either died for the elect as the scripture says, and continues to intercede for us, or everyone on the planet is going to Heaven. I can see Hitler on the precipice of Hell, screaming out "Wait Christ PAID for my sins in full, you can't just my sins twice", it's absurd and so is the argument against definite atonement, and HERESY, it's saying God is a beggar loving all infinitely, but oh that darn free will. I love how people glory in their supposed "Free Will" but forget entirely THAT GOD ALONE HAS FREE WILL, and it's much more powerful than the creatures.

I'm amazed how few know what the Reformation HINGED ON, it wasn't baptism, or sacraments, no it was much larger, it was FREE WILL, every Christian should read Luther's "Bondage of the Will"

 

[MennoSota]

Those that Christ died for He intercedes for, there is no blurring of the lines. God "Put out sins on Christ...", so if God put our sins on Christ, they were paid for, if God put all men's sins on Christ, then all will go to Heaven, and right now Christ is interceding for Kim Jun Il and everyone on the planet.

I know you brother know this is not complicated, Christ either died for the elect as the scripture says, and continues to intercede for us, or everyone on the planet is going to Heaven. I can see Hitler on the precipice of Hell, screaming out "Wait Christ PAID for my sins in full, you can't just my sins twice", it's absurd and so is the argument against definite atonement, and HERESY, it's saying God is a beggar loving all infinitely, but oh that darn free will. I love how people glory in their supposed "Free Will" but forget entirely THAT GOD ALONE HAS FREE WILL, and it's much more powerful than the creatures.

I'm amazed how few know what the Reformation HINGED ON, it wasn't baptism, or sacraments, no it was much larger, it was FREE WILL, every Christian should read Luther's "Bondage of the Will"

I am not presenting my view, but trying to discern what the author of the article I posted was saying about Calvin's view.

 

[Calv1]

I am not presenting my view, but trying to discern what the author of the article I posted was saying about Calvin's view.

I know I'm not preaching to you brother, I know you know all that

 

[utilyan]

Also what does Calvin have to do with it? Read the BIBLE, read John 6, in it you have TULIP, all points. "You are UNABLE to come to me", "Unless the FATHER DRAW YOU", "ALL that the Father draw WILL COME", and "he who comes to me I will not cast out". There all 5 points in one chapter.

Here's where our grammatically challenged brethren need to focus:

"ALL that the Father draw WILL COME" Bible verse please.

 

[rsr]

At the risk of repeating the already explicated: Calvin did not cast his theology in terms of limited or unlimited atonement. The key was predestination. Those after him made reasonable inferences about the outworkings of his doctrine.

Personally, I think unlimited atonement vs. limited atonement (and that's really an Anglo-American concept) means nothing and leads to endless speculation. Calvin believed that only those predestined to salvation, without any merit in themselves, will have eternal life. Put all the glosses on it that you will, but that is the core of his soteriology, not the speculative extent of the atonement.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

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.

only with a theological bias would you conclude that the human race is not meant.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Also what does Calvin have to do with it? Read the BIBLE, read John 6, in it you have TULIP, all points. "You are UNABLE to come to me", "Unless the FATHER DRAW YOU", "ALL that the Father draw WILL COME", and "he who comes to me I will not cast out". There all 5 points in one chapter.

why don't you stop seeing things as a "Calvinist" and do so as a Christian, without any theological bias. Calvin himself very clearly says on John 3:16, that Christs death was for EVERYONE WITHOUT EXCEPTION, which can ONLY mean the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE. Because those who try to claim that Calvin taught a "limited atonement", cannot accept that he did not, will try every trick in the book to change what he meant here! Lets start being honest!

 

[Hermeneut7]

why don't you stop seeing things as a "Calvinist" and do so as a Christian, without any theological bias. Calvin himself very clearly says on John 3:16, that Christs death was for EVERYONE WITHOUT EXCEPTION, which can ONLY mean the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE. Because those who try to claim that Calvin taught a "limited atonement", cannot accept that he did not, will try every trick in the book to change what he meant here! Lets start being honest!

I can go to www.onelook.com and scan through many dictionaries to view the meaning of "world" and it would be difficult to conclude that the word "world" applied to humans, means every single person who lives without exception. When I come to the Greek-English Lexicons I find a similar situation:

BDAG:
"6 - humanity in general, the world (TestAbr B 8 p. 113, 11 [Stone p. 74]; ApcEsdr 3:6 p. 27, 14; SibOr 1, 189; Just., A I, 39, 3 al.)
Image gener. οὐαὶ τῷ κ. ἀπὸ τῶν σκανδάλων woe to humankind because of the things that cause people to sin Mt 18:7; τὸ φῶς τοῦ κ. the light for humanity 5:14; cp. J 8:12; 9:5. ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κ. 4:42; 1J 4:14 (this designation is found in inscriptions, esp. oft. of Hadrian [WWeber, Untersuchungen z. Geschichte des Kaisers Hadrianus 1907, 225; 226; 229]).—J 1:29; 3:17b; 17:6.—κρίνειν τὸν κ. (SibOr 4, 184; TestAbr A 13 p. 92, 11 [Stone p. 32]; ApcMos 37) of God, Christ J 12:47a; Ro 3:6; B 4:12; cp. Ro 3:19. Of believers 1 Cor 6:2ab (cp. Sallust. 21 p. 36, 13 the souls of the virtuous, together w. the gods, will rule the whole κόσμος). Of Noah δι᾿ ἧς (sc. πίστεως) κατέκρινεν τὸν κ. Hb 11:7. ἡ ἁμαρτία εἰς τὸν κ. εἰσῆλθεν Ro 5:12; likew. θάνατος εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν κ. 1 Cl 3:4 (Wsd 2:24; 14:14). Cp. Ro 5:13; 1 Cor 1:27f. περικαθάρματα τοῦ κ. the refuse of humanity 4:13. Of persons before conversion ἄθεοι ἐν τῷ κ. 2 Cor 1:12; 5:19; Js 2:5; 1J 2:2; 4:1,..."

If the extent of redemption, the atonement, is meant to include every single human who ever lived, lives or will live; the NT could clearly state it. The Scriptures clearly stated that every single human who ever lived, lives or will live is a sinner, depraved:

"Well then, are we Jews any better off? No, not at all! For we have already drawn up the indictment that all, Jews and Greeks alike, are under the power of sin. Scripture says: There is no one righteous; no, not one; no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have swerved aside, all alike have become debased; there is no one to show kindness: no, not one." (Rom 3:9-12, REB)

We know "all" means every single person who has lived, lives or will live without exception. There are no such passages to support universal redemption. To understand the word "world" in a way to contradict clear statements to the contrary is going to give false teaching.

 

[utilyan]

only with a theological bias would you conclude that the human race is not meant.

Right, He would never conclude that on his own.

No one new to Christianity ever read the bible and came to a Calvinist conclusion. NEVER. All you Calvinist who weren't born in it were something else before, left your first love.

None of you all, absolutely none, was a atheist who decided to study Christianity picked up the bible, reads it, and then out of scripture formed Calvinist teaching then sought out a Calvinist church.

NONE, ZERO, ZIP, NADA.

You can't squeeze Calvinism out of scripture. Someone has to look over your shoulder to inject it. It is REQUIRED.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

I can go to www.onelook.com and scan through many dictionaries to view the meaning of "world" and it would be difficult to conclude that the word "world" applied to humans, means every single person who lives without exception. When I come to the Greek-English Lexicons I find a similar situation:

BDAG:
"6 - humanity in general, the world (TestAbr B 8 p. 113, 11 [Stone p. 74]; ApcEsdr 3:6 p. 27, 14; SibOr 1, 189; Just., A I, 39, 3 al.)
Image gener. οὐαὶ τῷ κ. ἀπὸ τῶν σκανδάλων woe to humankind because of the things that cause people to sin Mt 18:7; τὸ φῶς τοῦ κ. the light for humanity 5:14; cp. J 8:12; 9:5. ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κ. 4:42; 1J 4:14 (this designation is found in inscriptions, esp. oft. of Hadrian [WWeber, Untersuchungen z. Geschichte des Kaisers Hadrianus 1907, 225; 226; 229]).—J 1:29; 3:17b; 17:6.—κρίνειν τὸν κ. (SibOr 4, 184; TestAbr A 13 p. 92, 11 [Stone p. 32]; ApcMos 37) of God, Christ J 12:47a; Ro 3:6; B 4:12; cp. Ro 3:19. Of believers 1 Cor 6:2ab (cp. Sallust. 21 p. 36, 13 the souls of the virtuous, together w. the gods, will rule the whole κόσμος). Of Noah δι᾿ ἧς (sc. πίστεως) κατέκρινεν τὸν κ. Hb 11:7. ἡ ἁμαρτία εἰς τὸν κ. εἰσῆλθεν Ro 5:12; likew. θάνατος εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν κ. 1 Cl 3:4 (Wsd 2:24; 14:14). Cp. Ro 5:13; 1 Cor 1:27f. περικαθάρματα τοῦ κ. the refuse of humanity 4:13. Of persons before conversion ἄθεοι ἐν τῷ κ. 2 Cor 1:12; 5:19; Js 2:5; 1J 2:2; 4:1,..."

If the extent of redemption, the atonement, is meant to include every single human who ever lived, lives or will live; the NT could clearly state it. The Scriptures clearly stated that every single human who ever lived, lives or will live is a sinner, depraved:

"Well then, are we Jews any better off? No, not at all! For we have already drawn up the indictment that all, Jews and Greeks alike, are under the power of sin. Scripture says: There is no one righteous; no, not one; no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have swerved aside, all alike have become debased; there is no one to show kindness: no, not one." (Rom 3:9-12, REB)

We know "all" means every single person who has lived, lives or will live without exception. There are no such passages to support universal redemption. To understand the word "world" in a way to contradict clear statements to the contrary is going to give false teaching.

check out my post here, JOHN 3:16 - FOR GOD SO LOVES THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Right, He would never conclude that on his own.

No one new to Christianity ever read the bible and came to a Calvinist conclusion. NEVER. All you Calvinist who weren't born in it were something else before, left your first love.

None of you all, absolutely none, was a atheist who decided to study Christianity picked up the bible, reads it, and then out of scripture formed Calvinist teaching then sought out a Calvinist church.

NONE, ZERO, ZIP, NADA.

You can't squeeze Calvinism out of scripture. Someone has to look over your shoulder to inject it. It is REQUIRED.

yep, John Calvin himself was NOT a Calvinist!!!

 

[Hermeneut7]

yep, John Calvin himself was NOT a Calvinist!!!

What is the hangup on John Calvin? Read Luther and others down through the years:

Martin Luther on the atonement:

"God will have all men to be saved” (1 Timothy 2:4), and he gave his Son for us men, and he created man for the sake of eternal life. And likewise: Everything is there for man’s sake and he is there for God’s sake in order that he may enjoy him, etc. But this objection [to God’s sovereignty in salvation] and others like it can just as easily be refuted as the first one: because all these sayings must be understood only with respect to the elect [emphasis in original], as the apostle says in 2 Timothy 2:10, “All for the elect.” Christ did not die for absolutely all, for he says: “This is my blood which is shed for you” (Luke 22:20) and “for many” (Mark 14:24)- he did not say: for all- “to the remission of sins” (Matthew 26:28Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). [Martin Luther, Lectures on Romans, translated and edited by Wilhelm Pauck (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961), 252.]
Limited Atonement – compiled by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon | A Puritan's Mind

That page link above also lists the statements about the extent of the atonement down through the centuries.

Martin Luther on how God loves or hates men:

"And it is this very state of the truth, that of necessity proves "Free-will" to be nothing at all; seeing that, the love and hatred of God towards men is immutable and eternal; existing, not only before there was any merit or work of "Free-will," but before the worlds were made; and that, all things take place in us from necessity, accordingly as He loved or loved not from all eternity. So that, not the love of God only, but even the manner of His love imposes on us necessity. Here then it may be seen, how much its invented ways of escape profit the Diatribe; for the more it attempts to get away from the truth, the more it runs upon it; with so little success does it fight against it!" Section 101 of Bondage of the Will
TrueCovenanter.com: The Bondage of the Will

Right, He would never conclude that on his own.

No one new to Christianity ever read the bible and came to a Calvinist conclusion. NEVER. All you Calvinist who weren't born in it were something else before, left your first love.

None of you all, absolutely none, was a atheist who decided to study Christianity picked up the bible, reads it, and then out of scripture formed Calvinist teaching then sought out a Calvinist church.

NONE, ZERO, ZIP, NADA.

You can't squeeze Calvinism out of scripture. Someone has to look over your shoulder to inject it. It is REQUIRED.

"who gave himself for our sins to set us free from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father" (Gal 1:4, NRSV)

The Son gave himself for a purpose, "for our sins to set us free". If he gave himself for every man, he failed!

"He can save, He can cleanse
He can keep, and He will
God can do anything but fail
He can save, He can cleanse
He can keep, and He will
God can do anything but fail"

"He it is who sacrificed himself for us, to set us free from all wickedness and to make us his own people, pure and eager to do good." (Titus 2:14, REB)

If Jesus sacrificed himself for each and every man, bar none, then he failed. Again, Jesus never fails.

 

[agedman]

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?

This post makes two broad assumptions that are incorrect, so it obliges my brief response.

The first assumption that I am not a scholar, scholarly, or not done the work of a scholar, is drawn from ethereal space. Ether was the substance some early scientist considered the space what we now not true.

The second assumption is about what I hold as foundational doctrine.

I would let others, who I have more often engaged, answer, but in brief, as they will honestly attest, most certainly hold to the doctrines of Grace, however, just as in this thread, attempt to show that certain aspects of reformed doctrines need to be examined and perhaps as I suggest modified.

Such modifications do not weaken, rather strengthen the matters to fit more securely into the Scriptures.

To often, I have witnessed folks in public and/or private adhering to a view because they cling to the historic, or personage, or prestige, or politics, or friendship, or ... in favor of the Scriptures.

This thread has sought to expose one area that certainly (imo) should and is being carefully modified to fit more perfectly with the Scriptures.

Now I must attend other matters, but have certainly enjoyed the discussions of the thread.

 

[Hermeneut7]

check out my post here, JOHN 3:16 - FOR GOD SO LOVES THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE

The same apostle John wrote:

"and they sing a new song, saying, 'Worthy art thou to take the scroll, and to open the seals of it, because thou wast slain, and didst redeem us to God in thy blood, out of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation," (Rev 5:9, YLT)

"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)

There is no way possible to turn the words "out of" into universal redemption.

 

[agedman]

What is the hangup on John Calvin? Read Luther and others down through the years:

Martin Luther on the atonement:

"God will have all men to be saved” (1 Timothy 2:4), and he gave his Son for us men, and he created man for the sake of eternal life. And likewise: Everything is there for man’s sake and he is there for God’s sake in order that he may enjoy him, etc. But this objection [to God’s sovereignty in salvation] and others like it can just as easily be refuted as the first one: because all these sayings must be understood only with respect to the elect [emphasis in original], as the apostle says in 2 Timothy 2:10, “All for the elect.” Christ did not die for absolutely all, for he says: “This is my blood which is shed for you” (Luke 22:20) and “for many” (Mark 14:24)- he did not say: for all- “to the remission of sins” (Matthew 26:28Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). [Martin Luther, Lectures on Romans, translated and edited by Wilhelm Pauck (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961), 252.]
Limited Atonement – compiled by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon | A Puritan's Mind

That page link above also lists the statements about the extent of the atonement down through the centuries.

Martin Luther on how God loves or hates men: ...

If Jesus sacrificed himself for each and every man, bar none, then he failed. Again, Jesus never fails.

I have a serious problem taking authority from a man who never desired to leave the Catholic Church and was extremely racist against the Jews.

Just as Puritanism was and is willing to attempt to purify and cling to political and financial power rather than Scripturally separate, as all true believers do desire to leave the worldly, it is true that such men color their views of scripture accordingly. This is true of some of Luther's views and writing.

Rather than Luther, I would consider the reading of a far greater scholar (imo) - Johnathan Edwards.

"From these things it will inevitably follow, that however Christ in some sense may be said to die for all, and to redeem all visible Christians, yea, the whole world by his death; yet there must be something particular in the design of his death, with respect to such as he intended should actually be saved thereby. ". (Emphasis note mine -quote taken from here)

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

The same apostle John wrote:

"and they sing a new song, saying, 'Worthy art thou to take the scroll, and to open the seals of it, because thou wast slain, and didst redeem us to God in thy blood, out of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation," (Rev 5:9, YLT)

"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)

There is no way possible to turn the words "out of" into universal redemption.

Please go to my post on John 3:16, where you will see a few quotes from John Calvin himself, the person who is supposed to be behind "Calvinism", where in his own language we can see that he never believed or taught "limited atonement". Also, the fact that the language of John 3:16, especially with the lexical evidence that I have given, shows beyond any doubt, that Jesus Himself Who spoke these words, clearly taught "universal atonement". This needs to be dealt with in its proper context.

 

[agedman]

The same apostle John wrote:

"and they sing a new song, saying, 'Worthy art thou to take the scroll, and to open the seals of it, because thou wast slain, and didst redeem us to God in thy blood, out of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation," (Rev 5:9, YLT)

"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)

There is no way possible to turn the words "out of" into universal redemption.

I'm sorry but universal redemption is not in discussion.

As I stated before, both Paul and John wrote of the atonement offering, Paul from the view of furniture and John from the perspective of the blood - the actual red stuff.

From both one can as I showed earlier in this thread construct that indeed Christ died for all, but not all are redeemed by the Father.

There is no universal redemption. It is unScriptural. Those that would assume or teach such have little understanding of John 3.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

I'm sorry but universal redemption is not in discussion.

As I stated before, both Paul and John wrote of the atonement offering, Paul from the view of furniture and John from the perspective of the blood - the actual red stuff.

From both one can as I showed earlier in this thread construct that indeed Christ died for all, but not all are redeemed by the Father.

There is no universal redemption. It is unScriptural. Those that would assume or teach such have little understanding of John 3.

says you! then you have a bad understanding of the Atonement as taught in the Bible, with most certainly is universal!

 

[agedman]

says you! then you have a bad understanding of the Atonement as taught in the Bible, with most certainly is universal!

Perhaps I assumed your perspective and drew a wrong conclusion.

Certainly and just to clarify, you must then be using the term as the once a year offering upon the mercy seat. Then we would agree, and so would both John and Paul. That such offering was universal (for all in the land) irregardless of the individual heart condition, and so a picture of the atonement of Christ.

However, there are those who do teach that universal atonement indicates that there is no hell and God saves everyone. This view is heretical and held as such by the board moderators. It was that to which I inappropriately was responding. My apologies, for apparently I assumed incorrectly.

The difficulty in any discussion on the board is the view encased by terms that may be aligned differently by the readers.

For example, there are those who would limit the blood shed to a select few, calling for a limited atonement, when the actual limit is not insufficiency of blood but the redemption being strictly the selection of the Father.

Hence, the responses on this thread.