Calvin

[Saved-By-Grace]

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.

yes, indeed there are many views of the Atonement of Jesus Christ that are not based on the teachings of the Holy Bible. Limited Atonement being one of them. I think that you mean "universal salvation" and not "universal atonement", when you spake of those who believe that all will be saved in the end.

 

[agedman]

yes, indeed there are many views of the Atonement of Jesus Christ that are not based on the teachings of the Holy Bible. Limited Atonement being one of them. I think that you mean "universal salvation" and not "universal atonement", when you spake of those who believe that all will be saved in the end.

Agreed,

However, do not be alarmed when exposing the problems of limited atonement to be thrown in with those who would be universal in salvation.

For most, the two words (salvation and atonement) are inseparable, and rightly so given the definitions that have been generated more by centuries use than by factual teaching based on Scripture.

It would have been far better for the two words to have remained defining two similar yet remarkably different aspects.

One, that of the cover and blood. (As used by Paul and John).

The other, the purposeful choice of the Father's grace.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Agreed,

However, do not be alarmed when exposing the problems of limited atonement to be thrown in with those who would be universal in salvation.

For most, the two words (salvation and atonement) are inseparable, and rightly so given the definitions that have been generated more by centuries use than by factual teaching based on Scripture.

It would have been far better for the two words to have remained defining two similar yet remarkably different aspects.

One, that of the cover and blood. (As used by Paul and John).

The other, the purposeful choice of the Father's grace.

Yes, this is a blind spot for those who do not understand what the Bible teaches on the extent of the Atonement. They wrongly equate "universal atonement" with "universal salvation", as if Jesus' dying for the whole human race, must mean that the whole human race will be saved! Such is their folly.

 

[JonC]

Yes, this is a blind spot for those who do not understand what the Bible teaches on the extent of the Atonement. They wrongly equate "universal atonement" with "universal salvation", as if Jesus' dying for the whole human race, must mean that the whole human race will be saved! Such is their folly.

The problem is their contextual framework. They view the Cross as God punishing Jesus with the punishment reserved for our sins. If we view the Atonement this way there is no room for a Christ who is now our High Priest and mediator, interceding on our behalf, because all of this was satisfied not through a redemption or purchase with blood of Christ but by the punishment that awaits those who are saved inflicted on Christ.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

The problem is their contextual framework. They view the Cross as God punishing Jesus with the punishment reserved for our sins. If we view the Atonement this way there is no room for a Christ who is now our High Priest and mediator, interceding on our behalf, because all of this was satisfied not through a redemption or purchase with blood of Christ but by the punishment that awaits those who are saved inflicted on Christ.

But surely Jesus Christ was punished for the sins of the entire human race on the cross. But this does not become effective for any sinner, unless they repent and accept Jesus' provision through His finished work on the cross. The sanctification is completed when the sinner repents and is saved because of the work of Jesus and their faith placed in this work.

 

[Rippon]

I have quoted the following a number of times on the BB. Calvin wrote against the Lutheran Tilemann Heshusius:

"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."

 

[JonC]

But surely Jesus Christ was punished for the sins of the entire human race on the cross. But this does not become effective for any sinner, unless they repent and accept Jesus' provision through His finished work on the cross. The sanctification is completed when the sinner repents and is saved because of the work of Jesus and their faith placed in this work.

I agree that Jesus Christ was punished for the sins of the entire human race on the cross. I disagree that it was ineffective or provisional as an atonement itself. Instead all things are given to Christ, to include judgment (the Father judges no one). I think this is a blind spot for PSA (both Calvinistic views and those who have modified Calvin's theory into a non-Calvinistic version). Even non-Calvinistic PSA functions in such a way as Christ is neither High Priest nor Mediator (a potential atonement is simply applied).The context is wrong.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

I agree that Jesus Christ was punished for the sins of the entire human race on the cross. I disagree that it was ineffective or provisional as an atonement itself. Instead all things are given to Christ, to include judgment (the Father judges no one). I think this is a blind spot for PSA (both Calvinistic views and those who have modified Calvin's theory into a non-Calvinistic version). Even non-Calvinistic PSA functions in such a way as Christ is neither High Priest nor Mediator (a potential atonement is simply applied).The context is wrong.

the atonement must be "potential" rather than "actual", as its effectiveness cannot be automatically applied to all sinners, irrespective of whether they repent or not, but conditioned by repentance.

 

[JonC]

the atonement must be "potential" rather than "actual", as its effectiveness cannot be automatically applied to all sinners, irrespective of whether they repent or not, but conditioned by repentance.

Under Calvin's framework, no it can't. You are right. And if Calvin was correct that the atonement consisted of God punishing Jesus with our punishment (individually) then atonement is either limited to the elect in Christ's death or it is potential. I believe Calvin was wrong in viewing the Cross on the grounds of retributive justice.

 

[agedman]

I have quoted the following a number of times on the BB. Calvin wrote against the Lutheran Tilemann Heshusius:

"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."

Does not the quote taken out of the context of why Calvin wrote these words and what to the incitement he responded, distort what you intend for them to mean?

He was not embracing limited atonement such as the reformers would teach.

 

[agedman]

But surely Jesus Christ was punished for the sins of the entire human race on the cross. But this does not become effective for any sinner, unless they repent and accept Jesus' provision through His finished work on the cross. The sanctification is completed when the sinner repents and is saved because of the work of Jesus and their faith placed in this work.

Here is a problem.

It is in this matter of using the words or thinking that the blood shed is somehow held in trust until salvation. It again links what should not be linked.

As posted before, the single item that determines salvation is not the blood, for that has been done once for all. That item is belief. Without belief there is no salvation but standing as already condemned.

The work of salvation is accomplished when the Father signifies one is to be called.

The processes of repentance, and the experience of the believer remain solely for that believer to have a point in their living to recognize they have been changed. All called will repent and will be changed.

You are correct in the sanctification being complete. The thinking of "progressive sanctification" is wrong worded for growth in wisdom and knowledge (both by experience and example).

The moment the Father gives that person to Christ, that person is "retitled" as adopted son. The child is just too young to realize it.

 

[SovereignGrace]

John Calvin died 5/27/1564 and is buried in Geneva. Or he was the last time I heard about it...

 

[utilyan]

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


"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.

That doesn't mean he failed. Example God created everything good outcome? "rebellion". If your kingdom is in rebellion, you have a mess. Under your scrutiny God already failed plenty of times.

God doesn't want you to sin, RIGHT NOW, he wants you to stop sinning forever. And if you don't does that mean God is a failure?

No. Your logic fails repeatedly.

 

[utilyan]

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.

Romans 5

15But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.


^^^ANSWER THE MAN^^^^

How MUCH MORE has the grace of God abounded for many?

In other words the GRACE ABOUND OUTNUMBERS the MANY FALLEN.

Calvinist would have to answer Paul here........not much more....maybe even less then HALF!

Its common for Calvinist to be SUPRISED and SHOCKED God would even bother to save anybody at all. Its shocking and a suprise for them because they expected God to be completely merciless rather then halfway merciless.

Or what I like to say they expected God to be a complete jerk rather then half a jerk.


Answer that question folks HOW MUCH GLORIOUSLY MORE has grace abounded? If the fall took out 1000 and your saying only 300 hundred get grace.


You have more faith in the power of SIN. Sin brings more death then the righteousness of Christ. That is what you are claiming.

 

[Saved-By-Grace]

Here is a problem.

It is in this matter of using the words or thinking that the blood shed is somehow held in trust until salvation. It again links what should not be linked.

As posted before, the single item that determines salvation is not the blood, for that has been done once for all. That item is belief. Without belief there is no salvation but standing as already condemned.

The work of salvation is accomplished when the Father signifies one is to be called.

The processes of repentance, and the experience of the believer remain solely for that believer to have a point in their living to recognize they have been changed. All called will repent and will be changed.

You are correct in the sanctification being complete. The thinking of "progressive sanctification" is wrong worded for growth in wisdom and knowledge (both by experience and example).

The moment the Father gives that person to Christ, that person is "retitled" as adopted son. The child is just too young to realize it.

You say, "All called will repent and will be changed". So the sinner who is called by God through the preaching of the Gospel to repentance and faith in Jesus, will always repent? Are you saying that sinners cannot resist? Or, are you saying that those who have been predetermined to salvation will be saved, regardless of whether that sinner wants salvation?

 

[agedman]

You say, "All called will repent and will be changed". So the sinner who is called by God through the preaching of the Gospel to repentance and faith in Jesus, will always repent? Are you saying that sinners cannot resist? Or, are you saying that those who have been predetermined to salvation will be saved, regardless of whether that sinner wants salvation?

The person adopted by God as His own will always repent and are already saved. Such adoption is not determined by humankind.

If God does the saving, which He does, the human responds to the faith God grants them by repentance and belief. The timeline of salvation that some would construct as to when a person is saved relies upon human thinking. God uses time, but is not conformed or restricted by time.

Scriptures teach that it is God who does the work not man.

If God chooses to allow that man to experience conversion through another spreading the gospel by preaching, that is His to author and instigate.

God happened to chose preaching, but what much of we might consider preaching is far from what the early church heard. To them preaching meant sharing the good news of reconciliation as Paul stated (Colossians, Corinthians, Ephesians).

 

[Rippon]

Does not the quote taken out of the context of why Calvin wrote these words and what to the incitement he responded, distort what you intend for them to mean?

Take the words at face value and deal with them.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You say, "All called will repent and will be changed". So the sinner who is called by God through the preaching of the Gospel to repentance and faith in Jesus, will always repent?

Yes. That is what 'Irresistible Grace' means.

Are you saying that sinners cannot resist? Or, are you saying that those who have been predetermined to salvation will be saved, regardless of whether that sinner wants salvation?

God changes the heart, so that those who were saying, "We will not have this Man to rule over us" (Luke 19:14) are suddenly found saying, "His yoke is easy and His burden light." I know; I was that man. 'Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power' (Psalm 110:3). 'This was the LORD's doing; it is marvellous in our eyes' (Psalm 118:23).

 

[agedman]

Take the words at face value and deal with them.

Ripping,

Calvin, as you know, was responding to the transformation of the juice and bread into the actual blood and flesh still practiced by the Luthern.

He was certainly not taking the meaning you do with the out of context quote.

Does not doing such reduce scholarship?

 

[Rippon]

Ripping,

Calvin, as you know, was responding to the transformation of the juice and bread into the actual blood and flesh still practiced by the Luthern.

He was certainly not taking the meaning you do with the out of context quote.

Does not doing such reduce scholarship?

Mister Old Man:

New Testament scholars such as Dr. Robert Reymond and Roger Nicole have done as I did. You simply can't argue against the quote.