Calvinism needs to add words to scripture

[Martin Marprelate]

Calvinism is a truly horrible distortion of God’s Word.

Calvinism has its roots in a barbaric, ungodly, murderous attitude.

The hypocrisy when it comes to the word all is amazing.

Calvinism doesn’t understand election.

Here is an extract from What is an Evangelical by D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. It is also contained in the larger book called Knowing the Times:

'Let me mention a few things.... which I put into the category of non-essentials.
One is the belief in election and predestination. Now I am a Calvinist; I believe in election and predestination; but I would not dream of putting it under the heading of essential. I put it under the heading of non-essential. Mark you, I would condemn Pelagianism; I would say that Pelagianism is a denial of the truth of the Scripture with regard to salvation - that goes out. But I am thinking of Arminianism in its various forms, and therefore I do not put this into the category of essential.I do not for the reason that, to me, this is a matter of understanding. You a re not saved by your precise understanding of how this great salvation comes to you. What you must be clear about is that you are lost and damned, hopeless and helpless, and that nothing can save you but the grace of God in Jesus Christ and Him crucified, bearing the punishment for your sins, dying, rising again, ascending, sending the Spirit, regeneration. These are the essentials.

'Now when you come to ask me, How exactly do I come to a belief like this? I say that it is a matter of the understanding of the mechanics of salvation, not of the way of salvation. And here, while I myself hold very definite and strong views on the subject, I will not separate from a man who cannot accept and believe the doctrines of election and predestination, and is an Arminian, as long as he tells me that we are all saved by grace, and as long as the Calvinist agrees, as he must, that God calls all men everywhere to repentance. As long as both are prepared to agree about these things I say that we must not break fellowship. So I put election into the category of non-essentials.'


This would be my position. There are folk in the church at which I am an elder who are Arminian in their theology who nonetheless come to hear the Gospel preached. They are welcome and we are happy to receive them into membership, so long as they understand that the position of the church is Calvinistic, although it is not something that we see the need to bang on about constantly.

I regret the aggressive language that is sometimes used in debating this subject, and insofar as I have been guilty of it, I ask forgiveness.

 

[DaveXR650]

Please let me know what slander and what accusations you would like me to address. Quote me, and we will get it sorted out.

I was working on a good reply and then Martin posted above. I think that sufficiently sums up the way I feel too.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I have not missed it.
Calvinism dances around words and says “all may not come and none will be refused. So if they come they won’t be refused because God selected them before creation. But if they don’t come, God never called them. And God never refused them because they didn’t come. And they didn’t come because God refused to call them.”

These are word games that are deceptive.

Calvinism (as opposed to the 'hyper' version), is adamant that "all may come and none will be refused." The problem is that people will not come, not because God prevents them, but because they do not wish to come because theiy have wicked, unbelieving hearts.
This was the universal Calvinistic understanding of the Reformers and Baptists in the 16th and 17th Centuries. It was not until 1707 that one Joseph Hussey, who was in fact a Congregationalist, wrote a book declaring that grace was not offered, and the minister could only describe the 'operations of God's grace' and not encourage unbelievers to receive them. Unfortunately such views became popular among the Particular Baptists for some time, but they were not the teachings of the earlier Baptists. Andrew Fuller, in his book The Gospel worthy of all acceptance
showed that Hyper-Calvinism was a recent development and an interloper into Particular Baptist theology.
Fuller wrote: I believe it is the duty of every minister of Christ plainly and faithfully to preach the gospel to all that will hear it; and as I believe the inability of men to spiritual things to be wholly of the moral, and therefore of the criminal kind, and that it is their duty to love the Lord Jesus Christ and trust in him for salvation though they do not. I therefore believe free and solemn addresses, invitations, calls and warnings to them not only to be consistent, but directly adapted , as means, in the hand of the Sprit of God, to bring them to Christ. I consider it paert of my duty, which I could not omit without being guilty of the blood of souls.'
To which I can only add, Amen.

 

[Ben1445]

Here is an extract from What is an Evangelical by D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. It is also contained in the larger book called Knowing the Times:

'Let me mention a few things.... which I put into the category of non-essentials.
One is the belief in election and predestination. Now I am a Calvinist; I believe in election and predestination; but I would not dream of putting it under the heading of essential. I put it under the heading of non-essential. Mark you, I would condemn Pelagianism; I would say that Pelagianism is a denial of the truth of the Scripture with regard to salvation - that goes out. But I am thinking of Arminianism in its various forms, and therefore I do not put this into the category of essential.I do not for the reason that, to me, this is a matter of understanding. You a re not saved by your precise understanding of how this great salvation comes to you. What you must be clear about is that you are lost and damned, hopeless and helpless, and that nothing can save you but the grace of God in Jesus Christ and Him crucified, bearing the punishment for your sins, dying, rising again, ascending, sending the Spirit, regeneration. These are the essentials.

'Now when you come to ask me, How exactly do I come to a belief like this? I say that it is a matter of the understanding of the mechanics of salvation, not of the way of salvation. And here, while I myself hold very definite and strong views on the subject, I will not separate from a man who cannot accept and believe the doctrines of election and predestination, and is an Arminian, as long as he tells me that we are all saved by grace, and as long as the Calvinist agrees, as he must, that God calls all men everywhere to repentance. As long as both are prepared to agree about these things I say that we must not break fellowship. So I put election into the category of non-essentials.'

Here is a position that says that we may disagree on some nonessential aspects in Scripture and even of salvation without breaking of fellowship. It is a respectable position and I would like to consider myself the mirror of this position. I do not consider myself Pelagian. I have read many different definitions and I don’t agree with them all. But as long as the definition amounts to man being able to bring about his own salvation, I am most certainly not Pelagian. I may be accused of it but that doesn’t make it so.

This would be my position. There are folk in the church at which I am an elder who are Arminian in their theology who nonetheless come to hear the Gospel preached. They are welcome and we are happy to receive them into membership, so long as they understand that the position of the church is Calvinistic, although it is not something that we see the need to bang on about constantly.

I again would say that ours would be the mirror position. We are happy to fellowship with believers so long as they are not undermining the position of the church. And we also do not teach only teach and preach on this subject. I don’t deny that I have heard as many on both sides who would hear nothing else. I also believe that there is nothing in Calvinism excluding someone’s reliance upon being chosen as elect rather than believing on the Saviour, that would put them in position to have false faith.

I regret the aggressive language that is sometimes used in debating this subject, and insofar as I have been guilty of it, I ask forgiveness.

For my own part, I am more bothered by the thought that I have been guilty or considered guilty here than that someone speaking harshly to me. As far as I am concerned, there is nothing between us. And I also would apologize for anything that I have said that may have been offensive.

 

[Ben1445]

Calvinism (as opposed to the 'hyper' version), is adamant that "all may come and none will be refused."

The problem is that people will not come, not because God prevents them, but because they do not wish to come because theiy have wicked, unbelieving hearts.

On this point I wholeheartedly agree, nothing added or taken away. Here is common ground.

If we may move on from here, Christ came. God moved. With this development in the affairs of men, God has initiated a solid point of contact, a true bridge and way to come to the Father. In that Christ has overcome the sin, man must only trust Christ. If man does not trust Christ, he is still unbelieving.
But God has not stopped there. He has commanded that we share the word of salvation from sin to all others. This is a second point where God reaches out to man to the end he may be saved. The only thing he need do for salvation is leave his unbelief.

This was the universal Calvinistic understanding of the Reformers and Baptists in the 16th and 17th Centuries. It was not until 1707 that one Joseph Hussey, who was in fact a Congregationalist, wrote a book declaring that grace was not offered, and the minister could only describe the 'operations of God's grace' and not encourage unbelievers to receive them. Unfortunately such views became popular among the Particular Baptists for some time, but they were not the teachings of the earlier Baptists. Andrew Fuller, in his book The Gospel worthy of all acceptance
showed that Hyper-Calvinism was a recent development and an interloper into Particular Baptist theology.
Fuller wrote: I believe it is the duty of every minister of Christ plainly and faithfully to preach the gospel to all that will hear it; and as I believe the inability of men to spiritual things to be wholly of the moral, and therefore of the criminal kind, and that it is their duty to love the Lord Jesus Christ and trust in him for salvation though they do not. I therefore believe free and solemn addresses, invitations, calls and warnings to them not only to be consistent, but directly adapted , as means, in the hand of the Sprit of God, to bring them to Christ. I consider it paert of my duty, which I could not omit without being guilty of the blood of souls.'
To which I can only add, Amen.

Agreed.

 

[Ascetic X]

But this really is the point; Paul did teach Calvinism, and so did the Lord Jesus.

Remarks like this exalt, to the same level as scriptures, the teachings of a man who supported beheading theologians who disagreed with him and burning them at at the stake.

Paul and Jesus preached the gospel, not Calvinism.

Putting Calvinism on the same level as, or equal to, the Bible is what cults do.

Unlike John Calvin, Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc. were martyrs, not murderers.

Matthew 7

17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.


John Calvin was widely regarded as having a choleric, strict, and uncompromising personality, often described as harsh, severe, and "sandpaper on bare skin" by his contemporaries. His flaws included a fiery temper, intense jealousy of his reputation, and a dogmatic approach that led to authoritarian rule in Geneva, causing severe persecution and murder of Calvin’s theological opponents.

Calvin was merciless toward theological dissenters, leading to the execution of Michael Servetus, the beheading of Jacques Gruet, and the imprisonment or banishment of many others (e.g., Jerome Bolsec).

As a leader, he enforced strict moral laws in Geneva, leading to 414 prosecutions for offences such as wearing the wrong clothing or dancing.

He was prideful and prone to holding deep grudges, and his letters often revealed a deeply passionate, but vindictive, stubborn, and unforgiving side in disputes.

His extreme dedication to doctrine and rigid demeanor led to broken relationships, and his sometimes manipulative, gossipy attempts to secure support backfired, damaging his already bad reputation.

 

[Ben1445]

Note that my "not a gotcha" was applicable here.

James stated "But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death." drawing a line from OUR OWN DESIRES - through SIN - to DEATH.
Yet, when I ask if you accept this at face value, and MAN is responsible for his own DEATH, you "get tricky" and employ scripture pong to prove that James does not mean what he said and GOD is responsible.

Allow me to answer my own questions:

Is James 1 True or false? [James 1 is to be understood as given.]
Who is responsible for "temptation"? [Man is responsible ... "each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires"]
Who is responsible for "sin"? [Man is responsible ... "when (man's) desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin"]
Who is responsible for "death"? [Man is responsible ... "and (man's) sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death"]
God or man? [From James 1 and the answers above, Man is responsible for "temptation" that leads to "sin" that leads to "death" so Man is responsible and God is not responsible for "temptation/sin/death"]

Man is responsible for the cause of his own death.
Death is something that originates with God and comes to the punished.

Genesis 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Death is first mentioned by God. It is enacted by God. As much as it is the result of man’s actions, death is no more spiritual suicide than capital punishment for a criminal is suicide.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Remarks like this exalt the teachings of a man who supported beheading theologians who disagreed with him and burning them at at the stake…exalt them above the scriptures.

Paul and Jesus preached the gospel, not Calvinism.

Putting Calvinism on the same level as, or equal to, the Bible is what cults do.

Unlike John Calvin, Jesus, Paul, Peter, etc. were martyrs, not murderers.

Matthew 7

17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.


John Calvin was widely regarded as having a choleric, strict, and uncompromising personality, often described as harsh, severe, and "sandpaper on bare skin" by his contemporaries. His flaws included a fiery temper, intense jealousy of his reputation, and a dogmatic approach that led to authoritarian rule in Geneva, causing severe persecution and murder of Calvin’s theological opponents.

Calvin was merciless toward theological dissenters, leading to the execution of Michael Servetus, the beheading of Jacques Gruet, and the imprisonment or banishment of many others (e.g., Jerome Bolsec).

As a leader, he enforced strict moral laws in Geneva, leading to 414 prosecutions for offences such as wearing the wrong clothing or dancing.

He was prideful and prone to holding deep grudges, and his letters often revealed a deeply passionate, but vindictive, stubborn, and unforgiving side in disputes.

His extreme dedication to doctrine and rigid demeanor led to broken relationships, and his sometimes manipulative, gossipy attempts to secure support backfired, damaging his already bad reputation.

You are unfortunately obsessed with John Calvin. As I have pointed out, he was not the originator of Calvinism

 

[Ascetic X]

You are unfortunately obsessed with John Calvin. As I have pointed out, he was not the originator of Calvinism

That’s like saying Marx was not the originator of Marxism.

You do not understand Calvinism as a term.

Calvinism is the name derived from its most famous leader, John Calvin (born Jehan Cauvin), an influential Reformation-era theologian from Geneva, Switzerland. The term was first used by opposing Lutherans in the 1550s.

Calvinism is primarily based on the theological teachings and writings of 16th-century French reformer John Calvin, particularly his work Institutes of the Christian Religion. While rooted in his work, the system was developed further by his followers, and influenced by contemporaries like Huldrych Zwingli and Augustinian traditions.

You say you believe in Calvinism, but you refuse to consider the despicable character of John Calvin himself.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

That’s like saying Marx was not the originator of Marxism.

Was Marx the originator of Marxism?

 

[Ascetic X]

Was Marx the originator of Marxism?

If not Marx, what is Marxism based on? You deflect to avoid confronting what a horrible person John Calvin was.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

So you think Marx was the originator of Marxism? You were the one who brought Marx up, not I.
If you do think Marx was the originator of Marxism, then the comparison is flawed because Calvin was not the originator of Calvinism.
Here you are again, from my signature.
'By grace we are plucked out of Adam, the ground of all evil, and graffed into Christ, the root of all goodness. In Christ God loved us, his elect and chosen, before the world began, and reserved us unto the knowledge of his Son and of his holy gospel; and when the gospel is preached to us, openeth our hearts, and giveth us grace to believe, and putteth the Spirit of Christ in us.'
This was written by William Tyndale in 1525, when Calvin was still a teenager and a Roman Catholic.

But I do recommend that you read a non-biased biography of Calvin. He was a man of his times, and I'm not going to defend all his actions or beliefs; but the work he did for the Gospel was crucial in reviving and preserving Biblical Christianity. He was moved to write the Institutes after hearing of the fanatical events in Munster launched by certain Anabaptists in 1534-35. Other Anabaptists were Unitarians, others, including Menno Simons, supported the teaching that the Lord Jesus did not partake of any of the flesh of Mary, which means that He would not be fully human as well as wholly divine. The Reformation was a very messy business. I don't wish to gloss over Calvin's faults, but he, above all others, ensured that Biblical doctrine survived.

The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there (L.P. Hartley).

 

[Ascetic X]

I don't wish to gloss over Calvin's faults, but he, above all others, ensured that Biblical doctrine survived.

Again, this is equating Calvin’s teachings with Biblical doctrine.

Much of his teaching is considered by some scholars as gross perversions of Biblical doctrine, including the false idea of “sovereignty” (a non-biblical term), turning God into a monster who wills that vile sins and horrendous crimes happen.

Jeremiah 19:5

They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind.

 

[Van]

Seven pages of copy and paste arguments in favor of fallacy. In the OP, Ascetic X demonstrated once again that Limited Atonement is false doctrine.

Later Ascetic X made a very nice point with the verse, many are called but few are chosen. If the call was via irresistible grace, falsely claimed to the "draw" of John 6:44, then then the verse would read "few are called and chosen." Next, the false doctrine says you can "call" someone who cannot hear or see, which according to their own doctrine is impossible due to total spiritual inability.

I could go on for pages, bu to no avail, once deluded almost always deluded.

 

[Silverhair]

You are unfortunately obsessed with John Calvin. As I have pointed out, he was not the originator of Calvinism

I agree, he was not, that dishonor would go to Augustine. Augustine brought the false doctrines into the church that Calvin and later Calvinist teachers just carried forward.

But this has been pointed out on this board many times and yet people still defend those pagan views.

 

[DaveXR650]

I used to have Calvin's Institutes on my Kindle. Does anyone know of a place where Calvin definitely says the atonement is limited? The Institutes has disappeared from my Kindle, which is one of the complaints a lot of Kindle users have, but I ask because recently I have been reading John Goodwin's "Redemption Redeemed", which is a Puritan era defense of unlimited atonement, and he claims Calvin was not a believer in limited atonement.

I have the same question regarding Augustine. I only have his "Confessions" and have not read all of it. But, did he actually teach limited atonement as a distinct, specific doctrine, or has this been deduced based on his overall deterministic philosophy.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

But, John Calvin was an extremely angry, arrogant, and despicable person, in favor of beheading and burning at the stake those who disagreed with him. I cannot accept any theology from such a fiend. We have to look at the person who generated ideas and not solely at the ideas themselves.

"John Calvin was...in favor of beheading and burning at the stake those who disagreed with him" = Horror.

So, we know that God didn't Call Calvin, or Lead him, to do that.

"For as many as are Led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God", Romans 8:14.

When I look at the malicious person of John Calvin, I am repulsed by his teachings, which even considered apart from Calvin’s personality, do not resonate with the qualities of God as I see them revealed in scripture.

If you do not see The Eternal Doctrines of Grace which Resonate with the True Qualities of God Revealed in Scripture, then they are hidden from you, beginning with you not knowing what a sinner is.

the peace-loving Anabaptist, Menno Simons

I am one of THE CHILDREN OF THE FLAMES.

His treatment of his theological opponents is well known. Michael Servetus was executed by being burned at the stake. Calvin rejected any suggestion he was too harsh on Servetus by claiming that he had wanted to behead him instead (it was quicker and therefore more “merciful”).

And there is no defense for anyone who mindlessly murders, much less for religious purposes.

I suppose Calvin also claimed to be saved by this time, while Saul when he did this was definitely lost.

Then, there is the case where Moses murdered one who he thought was his religious opponent, before he had gotten more clear direction from the Lord, and was dealt with in Mercy through our Lord's Forgiveness, as was David for his murder.

In fact, we can thank Baptists for the Religious Liberty in this Country, in fact the first ever on Earth.

Baptists never persecuted their Religious opponents or anyone else.

And we can thank Baptists for contending for the Faith once Delivered to the saints by preaching the Glorious Truths of the Eternal Doctrines of Grace, like their counterparts all through the Old Testament, from the time of Adam, in spite of Baptists being mercilessly hounded and tortured and martyred by the tens of millions, by the Catholics and Protestants, who killed them thinking thy were doing the service of God...

"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common Salvation,
it was needful for me to write unto you,
and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the Faith which was once Delivered unto the saints," Jude 1:3,
which does not include the senseless murder of true children of God, whether by Saved or unsaved Religious people.

Luckily for another critic, Jacques Gruet, he got the “merciful” treatment and was beheaded. Jerome Bolsec was imprisoned, as was Pierre Ameaux, who was also paraded through Geneva on his knees to confess his sin of daring to disagree with Calvin.

If you want to have someone better than Calvin represent the Doctrines of Grace like the Old Testament saints and Prophets, the New Testament writers, including Jesus, and from the Church Fathers, on up through the entire Church Age, until today, then be that that guy.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

This is not the kind of man by whom I wish to be instructed in Christian spirituality.

Calvin got most of his research concerning The Biblical Doctrines of God's Eternally Giving Grace which articulate The Eternal Covenant of Peace between and among the Three Divine Persons in The Triune Godhead, from The Church Fathers and what benefit he may have gotten from the teachings and writings of the caliper of God's children he so mercilessly persecuted, we have little on record remaining.

Adapted from THE CAUSE OF GOD AND TRUTH by John Gill
which is "An Exegetical Work on the Five Points of Calvinism -- "No man since Augustine has written so largely in defense of the system of Grace, and certainly no man has treated that momentous subject, in all its branches, more closely, judiciously, and successfully," said Augustus Toplady of Gill.

"This is a masterful defense of the Doctrines of Sovereign Grace by which Gill refuted the popular Arminian writings of his day."

"Since those Doctrines which are commonly called, Calvinistical are charged with novelty, and are represented as running directly contrary to the whole stream of antiquity, and the sentiments of the Ancient Fathers, and as entirely unknown to the Christian church before the time of Austin;

"when, on the other hand, the Doctrines of the Universal Scheme are said to be confirmed by the concurrent suffrage of all antiquity, and the express and frequent declarations of the Ancient Fathers; it is necessary that this affair should be inquired into and examined, whether it is matter of fact or no. And this will be the subject of this Fourth Part.

"But, before we enter upon it, let the following things be observed:

"1. That the writings of the best of men, of the most early antiquity, and of the greatest learning and piety, cannot be admitted by us as the rule and standard of our faith. These, with us, are only the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament: to these we appeal, and by these only can we be determined. If therefore the oracles of God are on our side; if we have the concurrent suffrage and the frequent and express declarations of the holy prophets, of Christ and his apostles, we have the best and earliest antiquity for us, and are free, and far enough from the charge of novelty."

Etc., etc. 2.,3.,4.,5., etc., are at https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/gill/The Cause of God and Truth - Gill.pdf

PART 4 - Introduction
Chapter 1 - Reprobation -Introduction -Clemens Romanus. A.D. 69. -Ignatius. A.D. 110. -Justin. A.D. 150. -Minutius Felix. A.D. 170. -Irenaeus. A.D. 180. -Clements Alexandrinus. A.D. 190. -Tertullian. A.D. 200. -Origenus Alexandrinus. A.D. 230. -Caecilius Thascius Cyprianus. A.D. 250. -Novatianus. A.D. 250. -Athanasius. A.D. 350. -Hilarius Pictaviensis. A.D. 360. -Basilius Caeariensis. A.D. 370. -Cyrillus Hierosol Ymitanus. A.D. 370. -Gregorius Nazianzenus. A.D. 370. -Hilarius Diaconus. A.D. 380. -Ambrosius Mediolanensis. A.D. 380. -Joannes Chrysostomus. A.D. 390. -Hieronymus. A.D. 390.

Chapter 2 - Of Redemption -Introduction -Clemens Romanus. A.D. 69. -Barnabas. A.D. 70. -Ignatius. A.D. 110. -Justin. A.D. 150. -Ecclesia Smyrnensis. A.D. 169. -Irenaeus. A.D. 180. -Tertullian. A.D. 200. -Origines Alexandrinus. A.D. 230. -Cyprian. A.D. 250. -Lactantius. A.D. 320. -Paulinus Tyrius. A.D. 325. -Eusebius Pamphilus Caesariensis. A.D. 330. -Julius Firmicus. A.D. 350. -Anthanasius. A.D. 350. -Macarius Aegyptius. A.D. 350. -Hilarius Pictaviensis. A.D. 363. -Basilius Caesariensis. A.D. 370. -Optatus Milevitanus. A.D. 370. -Victorious. A.D. 365. -Marcus Eremita. A.D. 390. -Faustinus. A.D. 390. -Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus. A.D. 370. -Gregorius Nazianenus. A.D. 370. -Didumus Alexandrinus. A.D. 370. -Gregorius Nyssenus. A.D. 380. -Pacianus Barcinonensis. A.D. 380. -Hilarius Diaconus. A.D. 380. -Ambrosius Mediolanensis. A.D. 380. -Epiphanius. A.D. 390. -Gaudentius Brixiensis. A.D. 390. -Joannes Chrysostomus. A.D. 390. -Ruffinus Aquileiensis. A.D. 390. -Hieronymus. A.D. 390.

Chapter 3 - Of Original Sin -Introduction -Clemens Romanus. A.D. 69. -Barnabas. A.D. 70. -Ignatius. A.D. 110. -Justin. A.D. 150. -Irenaeus. A.D. 180. -Clemens Alexandrinus. A.D. 190. -Tertullian. A.D. 200. -Origines Alexandrinus. A.D. 230. -Gregorius Neocaesariensis. A.D. 240. -Cyprian. A.D. 250. -Arnobius. A.D. 290. -Lactantius. A.D. 320. -Eusebus Caesariensis. A.D. 330. -Macarius Egyptus. A.D. 350.-Athanasius. A.D. 350. -Hilarius Pictaviensis. A.D. 360. -Victorinus Afer. A.D. 365. -Optatus Milevitanus. A.D. 370. -Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus. A.D. 370. -Basilius Caesariensis. A.D. 370. -Gregorius Nazianzenus. A.D. 370. -Gregorius Nyssenus. A.D. 380. -Hilarius Diaconus. A.D. 380. -Ambrosius Mediolanensis. A.D. 380. -Epiphanius. A.D. 390. -Marcus Eremits. A.D. 390. -Joannes Chrysostomus. A.D. 390. -Hieronymus. A.D. 390.

Chapter 4 - Of Efficacious Grace -Introduction -Clemens Romanus. A.D. 69. -Barnabas. A.D. 70. -Justin. A.D. 150. -Irenaeus. A.D. 180. -Clemens Alexandrinus. A.D. 190. -Tertullian. A.D. 200. -Origenes Alexandrinus. A.D. 230. -Cyprian. A.D. 250. -Eusebius Caesariensis. A.D. 330. -Athanasius. A.D. 350. -Macarius Egyptius. A.D. 350. -Hilarius Pictaviensis. A.D. 360. -Basilius Caesariensis. A.D. 370. -Gregorius Nazianzenus. A.D. 370. -Didymus Alexandrinus. A.D. 370. -Gregorius Nyssenus. A.D. 380. -Hilarius Diaconus. A.D. 380. -Ambrosius Mediolanensis. A.D. 380. -Marcus Eremita. A.D. 390. -Joannes Chrysostomus. A.D. 390. -Hieronymus. A.D. 390.

Chapter 5 - Of Perseverance -Introduction -Clemens Romanus. A.D. 69. -Barnabas. A.D. 70. -Ignatius. A.D. 110. -Irenaeus. A.D. 180. -Epistola Martyrum Galliae. A.D. 180. -Clemens Alexandrinus. A.D. 190. -Tertullian. A.D. 200. -Origines Alexandrinus. A.D. 230. -Cyprian. A.D. 250. -Lactantius. A.D. 320. -Eusebius Caesariensis. A.D. 330. -Chronomatius. A.D. 335. -Athanasius. A.D. 350. -Macarius Aegyptus. A.D. 350. -Hilarius Pictaviensis. A.D. 350. -Basilius Caesariensis. A.D. 370. -Gregorius Nazianzenus. A.D. 350. -Gregorius Nyssenus. A.D. 380. -Hilarius Diaconus. A.D. 380. -Ambrosius Mediolanensis. A.D. 380. -Joannes Chrysostomus. A.D. 390. -Hieronymus. A.D. 390.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I used to have Calvin's Institutes on my Kindle. Does anyone know of a place where Calvin definitely says the atonement is limited? The Institutes has disappeared from my Kindle, which is one of the complaints a lot of Kindle users have, but I ask because recently I have been reading John Goodwin's "Redemption Redeemed", which is a Puritan era defense of unlimited atonement, and he claims Calvin was not a believer in limited atonement.

I have the same question regarding Augustine. I only have his "Confessions" and have not read all of it. But, did he actually teach limited atonement as a distinct, specific doctrine, or has this been deduced based on his overall deterministic philosophy.

I have, to my shame, never read the Institutes, but you will find election and effectual atonement (I prefer 'effectual' to 'limited') in his commentaries on Ephesians and Romans, and doubtless elsewhere.
But it is a great error to suppose that Calvin was the originator of Calvinism. Not only Tyndale, but all the early Reformers held to it, including men like Luther, Zwingli, Bullinger, Bucer and Peter Martyr who, like Tyndale, were active before Calvin as well as his contemporaries like William Farel, and all the English Reformers like Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley and others. It was simply what the Scriptures taught them.
I will just add that Calvin was very well read in all the Church Fathers, not only Augustine, but Chrysostom, Basil, Ambrose and Cyprian and others whom he quotes in his Letter to Cardinal Sadoleto.

 

[Jerome]

I used to have Calvin's Institutes on my Kindle. Does anyone know of a place where Calvin definitely says the atonement is limited? The Institutes has disappeared from my Kindle, which is one of the complaints a lot of Kindle users have, but I ask because recently I have been reading John Goodwin's "Redemption Redeemed", which is a Puritan era defense of unlimited atonement, and he claims Calvin was not a believer in limited atonement.

I have the same question regarding Augustine. I only have his "Confessions" and have not read all of it. But, did he actually teach limited atonement as a distinct, specific doctrine, or has this been deduced based on his overall deterministic philosophy.

It is interesting to compare Calvin's Commentaries to the elaborate doctrinal schemes he concocted in The Institutes.
His Commentaries, by their nature, are more constrained by Scripture. As one observer noted:

"In his expositions [Calvin] is not always what moderns would call Calvinistic" —Charles Spurgeon, Commenting and Commentaries

John Calvin: Commentary on Matthew, Mark, Luke - Volume 3 - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

ccel.org

[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; for he contrasts many with one; as if he had said, that he will not be the Redeemer of one man only, but will die in order to deliver many from the condemnation of the curse. It must at the same time be observed, however, that by the words for you, as related by Luke — Christ directly addresses the disciples, and exhorts every believer to apply to his own advantage the shedding of blood Therefore, when we approach to the holy table, let us not only remember in general that the world has been redeemed by the blood of Christ, but let every one consider for himself that his own sins have been expiated."