-
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!
did John Calvin Actually believe In Double presentination/Limited Atonment?
- Thread starter JesusFan
- Start date
While Calvin did allude to a sufficient/efficient view, he did not treat the subject explicitly in any full sense.
Calvin's reprobation is another matter. He did write quite a bit about that.
See Institutes III, xxiii, 7, et. al.
Absolutely he did. Just read The Institutes.
You might try his commentaries. You will note that he was not as 'emphatic' you might presume
Didn't it seem that Calvin "left open" the possibility that jesus died for Sins of all peoples, but that those who He elected and called were only ones to actually receive its effectual benefit?
And That IF he taught the lost were "predestined" to that state by a decree from God, that he still saw it as the result of the sinner refusing to heed obey God, not because God "forced them" to go to Hell? That he place the responsibility back on the unsaved still?
Calvin was emphatic in his belief of Reprobation. L is a different matter.
I know.. "preachinJesus" commented on your:
and he stated - yes he did, just read the Institutes.
My post was in response to that. :thumbs:
Having read Calvin's Institutes and working my way through it again, I believe he would hold to "L". Saying, by the way, Jesus died for all as he does in his commentaries does not disqualify the "L", other Calvinists would agree.
On the other hand, there is a well known dissertation where it is asserted that Calvin did not believe in "L". I have never read this dissertation and I know and respect some scholars who give this work academic respect (both who agree and disagree with this work). Until I can read the dissertation, I have to rely upon my current view that it appears Calvin held to the "L".
has anyone read this dissertation (can't remember who wrote it, but I have read what others wrote about it)?
On the other hand, there is a well known dissertation where it is asserted that Calvin did not believe in "L". I have never read this dissertation and I know and respect some scholars who give this work academic respect (both who agree and disagree with this work). Until I can read the dissertation, I have to rely upon my current view that it appears Calvin held to the "L".
has anyone read this dissertation (can't remember who wrote it, but I have read what others wrote about it)?
I'm afraid it does though. "L" is specific in that Christ died ONLY for the elect.
However, I have argued that back in his day they did not necessarily divide up the 'atonement' and it's reception as many do today, but was more specifically identified as being those who received the atonement that was made.
IOW - that Atonement itself is general or 'to all' but it's application or effect is only upon those of faith.
If this is the case, I and most non-cals would hold to "L" as we agree, that only the elect will receive the propitiation by faith (as Romans 3:25 states), even though the atonement (as was set forth in the LAW of the OT) was made on behalf of all but only those of faith were saved.
Allan,
I am a Calvinist. There is a difference between effectual atonement, and saying Christ died for the whole world. The effectual aspect is not a debate in Calvinistic circles, the latter is often debated. I think Beeke's book on Calvinism in celebration of Calvin's 400 years has a discussion on this, but I am not sure.
Does limited/unlimited then refer to just WHO would be the inteeded target of the Grace of God from the Cross, NOT how many sins were being atoned for?
If one like me says that jesus died for sins of all people, but oNLY those he has decided to elct to etrenal Life receive benefits from that act...
Is that limited or unlimited?
He died for all, but not all even possible to be saved
There are quite a few scholarly articles on this. Roger Nicole wrote an article first published in the Westminster Journal of Theology (Fall, 1985), called (surprisingly) "John Calvin's View of the Extent of the Atonement". He concluded that 'L' fits Calvin's pattern of theology better than any alternative and that there is evidence to suggest he held to a view compatible with L (and Nicole clearly thinks that Calvin did believe it). But he admits that Calvin doesn't make himself explicit enough; writing, "a full discussion of the scope of the atonement is not found in Calvin’s writings."
If you are not interested in going to the very accessible primary sources (the Institutes and Calvin's commentary on John 3.16, 1 John 2, etc.) the next best bet is to read Nicole's article on the subject.
Update: I googled and found the article online: http://www.apuritansmind.com/Arminianism/NicoleRogerCalvinsLimitedAtonement.htm
Last edited by a moderator: