• 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!

Do You Believe In The Doctrines of Grace?

Status
Not open for further replies.

webdog

Active Member
Site Supporter
Exactly, works salvation. You salvation depended on you didn't it? Stop misrepresenting your faith.
You don't know your Bible, my friend. Try re-reading Ephesians 2:8-9 and try telling me again faith is a work...
Why you misrepresent your own belief is beyond me. Potential salvation is all your God offers but you must make it actual, ergo, you save yourself with the means provided. Why are you ashamed of this?
:rolleyes:
Did you ever have faith in Christ, John? Then you have done what you have stated (in bold), as regardless if it's our faith from the beginning...or the "saving faith" that is thrust upon you, you are saving yourself with the means provided.
Are you ashamed, john? Should be...
You mean without your decision there is no salvation. :) If it was His grace that saved you why are more not saved?
Faith plays absolutely no role in your theolgy, does it?
 

Jarthur001

Active Member
Allan said:
Here is a web link to our conversation, just in case.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=36710&page=6&highlight=early+church+dads
It should take you to page 2 where you and I began. But I will place here, our last conversation.

And my last post to you:

As you can see you do not dispute the quotes I give. And as I stated SOME were re-worded in paraphrase form but I dealt with that by giving full disclosure of what was being referenced in its full context.
rewording is NOT a quote Allan...come now. Some were not reworded...most all of them were. This is misleading...is it not?

A quote is what the person said...word for word. Like the quote from calvin. That is fully pulled out of context and if you were to read it and it alone you would have mislead what Calvin said..

This is your so called quote.

John 3:16, he said: ". . . The Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish.''11 Concerning the term whosoever in the same verse, he said: "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 impact of the term world, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favour 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.''

You added this last time..

John Calvins Commentaries:
(During the later years of his life Calvin wrote his commentaries, which reveal some development of thought, and in which he avoided some of the extremes found in the Institutes.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=938642&postcount=27

This is what John Calvin really said..

16. For God so loved the world. Christ opens up the first cause, and, as it were, the source of our salvation, and he does so, that no doubt may remain; for our minds cannot find calm repose, until we arrive at the unmerited love of God. As the whole matter of our salvation must not be sought any where else than in Christ, so we must see whence Christ came to us, and why he was offered to be our Savior. Both points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish. And this order ought to be carefully observed; for such is the wicked ambition which belongs to our nature, that when the question relates to the origin of our salvation, we quickly form diabolical imaginations about our own merits. Accordingly, we imagine that God is reconciled to us, because he has reckoned us worthy that he should look upon us. But Scripture everywhere extols his pure and unmingled mercy, which sets aside all merits.

And the words of Christ mean nothing else, when he declares the cause to be in the love of God. For if we wish to ascend higher, the Spirit shuts the door by the mouth of Paul, when he informs us that this love was founded on the purpose of his will, (Ephesians 1:5.) And, indeed, it is very evident that Christ spoke in this manner, in order to draw away men from the contemplation of themselves to look at the mercy of God alone. Nor does he say that God was moved to deliver us, because he perceived in us something that was worthy of so excellent a blessing, but ascribes the glory of our deliverance entirely to his love. And this is still more clear from what follows; for he adds, that God gave his Son to men, that they may not perish. Hence it follows that, until Christ bestow his aid in rescuing the lost, all are destined to eternal destruction. This is also demonstrated by Paul from a consideration of the time;

for he loved us while we were still enemies by sin,
(Romans 5:8, 10.)
And, indeed, where sin reigns, we shall find nothing but the wrath of God, which draws death along with it. It is mercy, therefore, that reconciles us to God, that he may likewise restore us to life.

This mode of expression, however, may appear to be at variance with many passages of Scripture, which lay in Christ the first foundation of the love of God to us, and show that out of him we are hated by God. But we ought to remember -- what I have already stated -- that the secret love with which the Heavenly Father loved us in himself is higher than all other causes; but that the grace which he wishes to be made known to us, and by which we are excited to the hope of salvation, commences with the reconciliation which was procured through Christ. For since he necessarily hates sin, how shall we believe that we are loved by him, until atonement has been made for those sins on account of which he is justly offended at us? Thus, the love of Christ must intervene for the purpose of reconciling God to us, before we have any experience of his fatherly kindness. But as we are first informed that God, because he loved us, gave his Son to die for us, so it is immediately added, that it is Christ alone on whom, strictly speaking, faith ought to look.

He gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him may not perish. This, he says, is the proper look of faith, to be fixed on Christ, in whom it beholds the breast of God filled with love: this is a firm and enduring support, to rely on the death of Christ as the only pledge of that love. The word only-begotten is emphatic, (ejmfatiko<n) to magnify the fervor of the love of God towards us. For as men are not easily convinced that God loves them, in order to remove all doubt, he has expressly stated that we are so very dear to God that, on our account, he did not even spare his only-begotten Son. Since, therefore, God has most abundantly testified his love towards us, whoever is not satisfied with this testimony, and still remains in doubt, offers a high insult to Christ, as if he had been an ordinary man given up at random to death. But we ought rather to consider that, in proportion to the estimation in which God holds his only-begotten Son, so much the more precious did our salvation appear to him, for the ransom of which he chose that his only-begotten Son should die. To this name Christ has a right, because he is by nature the only Son of God; and he communicates this honor to us by adoption, when we are engrafted into his body.

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.

Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all. For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith. Here, too, is displayed a wonderful effect of faith; for by it we receive Christ such as he is given to us by the Father -- that is, as having freed us from the condemnation of eternal death, and made us heirs of eternal life, because, by the sacrifice of his death, he has atoned for our sins, that nothing may prevent God from acknowledging us as his sons. Since, therefore, faith embraces Christ, with the efficacy of his death and the fruit of his resurrection, we need not wonder if by it we obtain likewise the life of Christ.

Still it is not yet very evident why and how faith bestows life upon us. Is it because Christ renews us by his Spirit, that the righteousness of God may live and be vigorous in us; or is it because, having been cleansed by his blood, we are accounted righteous before God by a free pardon? It is indeed certain, that these two things are always joined together; but as the certainty of salvation is the subject now in hand, we ought chiefly to hold by this reason, that we live, because God loves us freely by not imputing to us our sins. For this reason sacrifice is expressly mentioned, by which, together with sins, the curse and death are destroyed. I have already explained the object of these two clauses,

which is, to inform us that in Christ we regain the possession of life, of which we are destitute in ourselves; for in this wretched condition of mankind, redemption, in the order of time, goes before salvation.

Now...was that misleading or not?

We will address each one of these if you please. Last time everyone I looked at was just like this.

Why? The truth will set you free. :)
 

Allan

Active Member
Jarthur001 said:
rewording is NOT a quote Allan...come now. Some were not reworded...most all of them were. This is misleading...is it not?
Ok, I see what you mean now. Actually MOST all of them were not. You didn't (by your own words) didn't go beyond the second person on the list, so THAT to...is misleading to say 'most' are not direct quotes.

A quote is what the person said...word for word. Like the quote from calvin. That is fully pulled out of context and if you were to read it and it alone you would have mislead what Calvin said..

You are correct that I should have removed the quotations which are specific to to a direct quote. I should have been more academic in that. However Calvins quote IS word for word and IS in complete context.
I would love to hear you explaination on what the words "Human Race" mean. He didn't say Gods elect or His particular sheep, peaple, chosen or any other such wording that is in charactor with his writtings.
Look again at his writting and take them for what they say. Stop trying to interpret a man that is interpreting scirpture. In the preface of His commentaries Calvin states he wrote them in such a way as to allow all to understand who would desire to look into them. (yes. that is a paraphrase, but one you can look up). Look again at Calvins work:
16. For God so loved the world. Christ opens up the first cause, and, as it were, the source of our salvation, and he does so, that no doubt may remain; for our minds cannot find calm repose, until we arrive at the unmerited love of God. As the whole matter of our salvation must not be sought any where else than in Christ, so we must see whence Christ came to us, and why he was offered to be our Savior. Both points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish. And this order ought to be carefully observed; for such is the wicked ambition which belongs to our nature, that when the question relates to the origin of our salvation, we quickly form diabolical imaginations about our own merits. Accordingly, we imagine that God is reconciled to us, because he has reckoned us worthy that he should look upon us. But Scripture everywhere extols his pure and unmingled mercy, which sets aside all merits.

And the words of Christ mean nothing else, when he declares the cause to be in the love of God. For if we wish to ascend higher, the Spirit shuts the door by the mouth of Paul, when he informs us that this love was founded on the purpose of his will, (Ephesians 1:5.) And, indeed, it is very evident that Christ spoke in this manner, in order to draw away men from the contemplation of themselves to look at the mercy of God alone. Nor does he say that God was moved to deliver us, because he perceived in us something that was worthy of so excellent a blessing, but ascribes the glory of our deliverance entirely to his love. And this is still more clear from what follows; for he adds, that God gave his Son to men, that they may not perish. Hence it follows that, until Christ bestow his aid in rescuing the lost, all are destined to eternal destruction. This is also demonstrated by Paul from a consideration of the time;

for he loved us while we were still enemies by sin,
(Romans 5:8, 10.)
And, indeed, where sin reigns, we shall find nothing but the wrath of God, which draws death along with it. It is mercy, therefore, that reconciles us to God, that he may likewise restore us to life.

This mode of expression, however, may appear to be at variance with many passages of Scripture, which lay in Christ the first foundation of the love of God to us, and show that out of him we are hated by God. But we ought to remember -- what I have already stated -- that the secret love with which the Heavenly Father loved us in himself is higher than all other causes; but that the grace which he wishes to be made known to us, and by which we are excited to the hope of salvation, commences with the reconciliation which was procured through Christ. For since he necessarily hates sin, how shall we believe that we are loved by him, until atonement has been made for those sins on account of which he is justly offended at us? Thus, the love of Christ must intervene for the purpose of reconciling God to us, before we have any experience of his fatherly kindness. But as we are first informed that God, because he loved us, gave his Son to die for us, so it is immediately added, that it is Christ alone on whom, strictly speaking, faith ought to look.

He gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him may not perish. This, he says, is the proper look of faith, to be fixed on Christ, in whom it beholds the breast of God filled with love: this is a firm and enduring support, to rely on the death of Christ as the only pledge of that love. The word only-begotten is emphatic, (ejmfatiko<n) to magnify the fervor of the love of God towards us. For as men are not easily convinced that God loves them, in order to remove all doubt, he has expressly stated that we are so very dear to God that, on our account, he did not even spare his only-begotten Son. Since, therefore, God has most abundantly testified his love towards us, whoever is not satisfied with this testimony, and still remains in doubt, offers a high insult to Christ, as if he had been an ordinary man given up at random to death. But we ought rather to consider that, in proportion to the estimation in which God holds his only-begotten Son, so much the more precious did our salvation appear to him, for the ransom of which he chose that his only-begotten Son should die. To this name Christ has a right, because he is by nature the only Son of God; and he communicates this honor to us by adoption, when we are engrafted into his body.

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.[/U]

Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all. For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith. Here, too, is displayed a wonderful effect of faith; for by it we receive Christ such as he is given to us by the Father -- that is, as having freed us from the condemnation of eternal death, and made us heirs of eternal life, because, by the sacrifice of his death, he has atoned for our sins, that nothing may prevent God from acknowledging us as his sons. Since, therefore, faith embraces Christ, with the efficacy of his death and the fruit of his resurrection, we need not wonder if by it we obtain likewise the life of Christ.

As you can CLEARLY see, Calvin spoke to Christs death on behalf of the Whole World but Redemption only to the elect. General or Universal Atonement but Specific Redemption
This is your so called quote.
John 3:16, he said: ". . . The Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish.''11 Concerning the term whosoever in the same verse, he said: "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 impact of the term world, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favour 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.''
Just for the record...so you can see you are wrong, I made this EXACT QUOTE larger in Calvins work. Though they are in different sections it CLEARLY speaks to the same aspects.

You added this last time..

John Calvins Commentaries:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=938642&postcount=27
Yes, I did. And I did not add it this time because I have recently been shown that His commentaries were completed a couple of years (2 I think) before his institutes were completed. BUT BOTH were to be used together to give his works a more balanced compilation

This is what John Calvin really said..

Now...was that misleading or not?
Not in the least. Actaully I appreciate you giving the Whole of it because it better reveals my point that Calvin was not a staunch believer in Particular Atonement but leaned more toward General.

We will address each one of these if you please. Last time everyone I looked at was just like this.
I'm glad. That means they were accurate and truthful.
But you only looked at two the last time. You didn't even look up Calvin then.

{quote]Why? The truth will set you free. :)[/QUOTE]
I agree, thank you for you assistance. :wavey:
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Allan , I'll ask again . Give some quotes from the following men who you say supported unlimited atonement : Coverdale , Zanchius , Zwingli and Bucer . Merely saying they believed your theory does not go far enough . Give us their words . I am not trying to be difficult here . I need proof -- not just assertions .

Of course you also mentioned some other men without citing any of their words either : Latimer , Cranmer , Musculus , Bullinger , Artius , Becon , Paraeus , Osiander , Brentius , and Oecolampadius . That may be too much for you to tackle -- but you were the one who mentioned their names . I'll be content to see your citations of the four in my first paragraph . Time to get specific my friend .
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Allan

Active Member
Rippon said:
Allan , I'll ask again . Give some quotes from the following men who you say supported unlimited atonement : Coverdale , Zanchius , Zwingli and Bucer . Merely saying they believed your theory does not go far enough . Give us their words . I am not trying to be difficult here . I need proof -- not just assertions .

Of course you also mentioned some other men without citing any of their words either : Latimer , Cranmer , Musculus , Bullinger , Artius , Becon , Paraeus , Osiander , Brentius , and Oecolampadius . That may be too much for you to tackle -- but you were the one who mentioned their names . I'll be content to see your citations of the four in my first paragraph . Time to get specific my friend .
Oh brother :rolleyes:
Of course I will answer you. I have not shied away from you and your postings yet, but have met them point for point.

BTW - What I gave from the first was so people could go and look FOR THEMSELVES.

You also stated before that those in the list that WERE quoted never made any states like that. But there again I showed you were incorrect. I am at work but I will see if I can access some of my stuff or other specifics.
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
How could you have shown that I was "incorrect" about the quotes from the men in question when you never quoted them Allan ? I'll be content to see the words of the four I specified . When you cite their words it will be the first time you have done so on the BB .
 

Allan

Active Member
Rippon said:
How could you have shown that I was "incorrect" about the quotes from the men in question when you never quoted them Allan ? I'll be content to see the words of the four I specified . When you cite their words it will be the first time you have done so on the BB .
Because I DID quote them, just as I showed Jauthor regarding Calvin and his quote on General Atonement or Christ dieing for all men. Go back and read your own thread.
Yes there were a couple which were paraphrased but what they stated is still the same.
You tried that point as well and I went back and showed you there, the exact quotes of the men stating the same thing - General Atonement or Christ dieing for all men.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Your contentions that you supplied quotes from the four in in question are threadbare Allan . You never supplied their words , just an assertion that they believed in unlimited atonement . Please demonstrate , that's all I am asking .
 

Allan

Active Member
Rippon said:
Your contentions that you supplied quotes from the four in in question are threadbare Allan . You never supplied their words , just an assertion that they believed in unlimited atonement . Please demonstrate , that's all I am asking .
You are obviously not following what I was saying. In the other thread you were stating None of the people I was referencing, specifically a couple (Basil, Eusebius, Clement, and others) never made statement to which I was giving. I showed THEM specifically. THAT is what I was refering to in which I gave their quotes and where to go and read it for yourself.

But as to the rest, no problem. I will get back with you. :thumbs:
 

David Lamb

Well-Known Member
webdog said:
Odd, because I don't believe in the so called "doctrines of grace", and I also don't believe I can save myself, make myself fit for Heaven, and forgive my own sins.
Can this misrepresentation PLEASE STOP! These are nothing but strawmen that are repeated over, and over, and over again. Ignorance is NOT bliss!

Sorry, Webdog, and anyone else I may have unintentionally offended/misrepresented. Perhaps I should have added a phrase like "As I understand the Scriptures."

Having said that, I have noticed since joining the Baptist Board that over and over again the doctrines of grace are themselves misrepresented. One of the first messages I read (I can't remember the thread title) came from someone who imagined that those who believe in the grace doctrines don't involve themselves with evangelism, for example.

Anyway, I do apologise for any misrepresentation, and stress once again that it was not intentional.
 

Jarthur001

Active Member
Allan said:
Ok, I see what you mean now. Actually MOST all of them were not. You didn't (by your own words) didn't go beyond the second person on the list, so THAT to...is misleading to say 'most' are not direct quotes.



You are correct that I should have removed the quotations which are specific to to a direct quote. I should have been more academic in that. However Calvins quote IS word for word and IS in complete context.
I would love to hear you explaination on what the words "Human Race" mean. He didn't say Gods elect or His particular sheep, peaple, chosen or any other such wording that is in charactor with his writtings.
Look again at his writting and take them for what they say. Stop trying to interpret a man that is interpreting scirpture. In the preface of His commentaries Calvin states he wrote them in such a way as to allow all to understand who would desire to look into them. (yes. that is a paraphrase, but one you can look up). Look again at Calvins work:

As you can CLEARLY see, Calvin spoke to Christs death on behalf of the Whole World but Redemption only to the elect. General or Universal Atonement but Specific Redemption

Just for the record...so you can see you are wrong, I made this EXACT QUOTE larger in Calvins work. Though they are in different sections it CLEARLY speaks to the same aspects.


Yes, I did. And I did not add it this time because I have recently been shown that His commentaries were completed a couple of years (2 I think) before his institutes were completed. BUT BOTH were to be used together to give his works a more balanced compilation


Not in the least. Actaully I appreciate you giving the Whole of it because it better reveals my point that Calvin was not a staunch believer in Particular Atonement but leaned more toward General.


I'm glad. That means they were accurate and truthful.
But you only looked at two the last time. You didn't even look up Calvin then.

{quote]Why? The truth will set you free. :)
I agree, thank you for you assistance. :wavey:[/QUOTE]

Allan,

I see nothing in Calvins FULL quote, that all Calvinsit do not agree with. There is given this idea by non calvinist, that John Calvin "changed" or "toned down" his teachings. I have yet to see this backed up. There is nothing in that FULL statement that shows any change.

2nd....

the cut and past you keep posting is from a web site that is tring to claim these guys did not believe as Calvinist do today. This list is found around the web in many places.

Here is one of those places..
http://www.chafer.edu/journal/back_issues/v3no2-Rhodes.pdf

You even said...
But Rippon you also once again you neglect the myriads of others throughout history who did not hold to such a doctrine.
So, since you forgot to add these and a host of others throughout history I will remind you many that both you and I have already discussed and to which I have shown historically and documentedly their position on Atonment as being General:
You might remember our discussion in one of your threads some time ago

So it is clear the list is made and used to make people think that these guys did not believe as Calvinist of today. Yet the list does not quote the men word for word. Or...only shows part of a quote in order to make that person SEEM like they disagree with a Calvinist. Yet when you read the quote in context...the full quote in context..it is clear the maker of the list was tring to mislead.

The fact is, if you were to study church history on your own, the subject of the atonement is not addressed as to who it applies to, till after the man from hippo came around. The reason for this is many fold and beyond this thread.

Therefore I still say to use this list of early church fathers with reworded quotes and part quotes as if they disagreed with Calvinism, is very very very misleading.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Allan

Active Member
Jarthur001 said:
I agree, thank you for you assistance. :wavey:

Allan,

I see nothing in Calvins FULL quote, that all Calvinsit do not agree with. There is given this idea that John Calvin "changed" or "toned down" his teachings. There is nothing in that FULL statement that shows any change.

2nd....

the cut and past you keep posting is from a web site that is tring to claim these guys did not believe as Calvinist do today. This list is found around the web in many places.

You even said...


So it is clear the list is made and used to make people think that these guys did not believe as Calvinist of today. Yet the list does not quote the men word for word. Or...only shows part of a quote in order to make that person SEEM like they disagree with a Calvinist. Yet when you read the quote in context...the full quote in context..it is clear the maker of the list was tring to mislead.

The fact is, if you were to study church history on your own, the subject of the atonement is not addressed as to who it applies to, till after the man from hippo came around. The reason for this is many fold and beyond this thread.

Therefore I still say to use this list of early church fathers with reworded quotes and part quotes as if they disagreed with Calvinism, is very very very misleading.
I didn't quote EVERYTHING he stated on his web link, but if you look at his web link he is a 4 point Calvinist. I only used the portion of his accertions concerning the argument against limitied atonement from a historical perspective. I agreed with what he had because I to had ALREADY studied it out and used him as a quick sourse of many quotes because I was at work at the time. However he uses many if not most of the commonly known portions attributed to the authors.

PS...
The full context of Calvins commentary shows a definate difference in current Calvinism regarding The extent of Atonement. (Jesus died for all men, but only the elect will be saved.)

I just got in from work and it was a long night *sigh*.
So forgive me if I don't respond much today or so. I have a tent crusade coming up in 3 weeks and a church start in 4 and I have a pile of preperations to get done. The hard part here is the religiousness of the people who are generational Methodists, Catholics, and Lutherans. In speaking with them personally and going door to door, I have found about 90 percent don't even give themselves a 40 to 60 percent chance of heaven. (I know there is no such thing but when you have a works based salvation that gets their attention)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jarthur001

Active Member
Allan said:
I didn't quote EVERYTHING he stated on his web link, but if you look at his web link he is a 4 point Calvinist. I only used the portion of his accertions concerning the argument against limitied atonement from a historical perspective. I agreed with what he had because I to had ALREADY studied it out and used him as a quick sourse of many quotes because I was at work at the time. However he uses many if not most of the commonly known portions attributed to the authors.

PS...
The full context of Calvins commentary shows a definate difference in current Calvinism regarding The extent of Atonement. (Jesus died for all men, but only the elect will be saved.)

I just got in from work and it was a long night *sigh*.
So forgive me if I don't respond much today or so. I have a tent crusade coming up in 3 weeks and a church start in 4 and I have a pile of preperations to get done. The hard part here is the religiousness of the people who are generational Methodists, Catholics, and Lutherans. In speaking with them personally and going door to door, I have found about 90 percent don't even give themselves a 40 to 60 percent chance of heaven. (I know there is no such thing but when you have a works based salvation that gets their attention)

I had no idea this was the guy you pulled from, for he did not make the list himself. I have seen this before he wrote his little paper.

The point is...lets go back to the source. For him, or anyone to quote somone, we need to make sure we do it fairly.

Lets be clear as to what Calvinist do believe on this. Christ work on the cross had the power to save all of mankind. The atonment was not a picture as it was in the OT. Christ death paid it all, and was done only once. At that very point in time, the atonement was finished. Christ laid down his life for His sheep.

The atonement was a love act by God. Do you love all ladies the same as you love your wife? Do you think God loved other nations of the OT as He did the Jews? If you told your wife you loved her, but you loved all ladies just as much as her, what kind of love would she feel? If God loved all nations just as the Jews in the OT, just what was the point?

Christ work on the cross had the power to save all mankind. Any that come to Christ, is washed in the blood. But God also knew who would not come when He called all men to Him. Did Christ die for those that had died before He was born, and had believed in His death? Yes. Christ did not die for those in the ground,...those that died 200 years before,....or those that died in the flood.... that had never believed. This idea cheapens Gods love, just as you would cheapen your wifes love.
 

Allan

Active Member
Rippon said:
Your contentions that you supplied quotes from the four in in question are threadbare Allan . You never supplied their words , just an assertion that they believed in unlimited atonement . Please demonstrate , that's all I am asking .
I appologize for not being here and giving quick answers, but I have a great deal that needs to be getting done (most specifically with a church start that I will Pastor in 3 weeks) but many other things as well. Anyway...

Here are some that should suffice for now.
Jerome Zanchui:
Confession of the Christian Religion:
Chapter XI: Of Christ the Redeemer

We also with Hierome, Cyrill and other of the fathers, condemn the Originists and their like who taught that Christ rose again with a body like unto a spirit, most subtle, and in its own nature invisible, and not subject to the senses. All those likewise as Jews and Turks, which deny that the world is redeemed by the benefit of Christ's death. Also all those lastly, which go about to prove our salvation to be grounded upon any other thing, either in part or altogether, than only in Christ; and blasphemously do avouch that sins may be expiated or remitted by any other sacrifices than that one sacrifice of Christ only.

Chapter XII
II. The grace of redemption and salvation is offered unto all men, but indeed is not communicated but to the elect, who are made one with Christ.
For we believe that although the grace of redemption, salvation and eternal life which God bestoweth be earnestly propounded and offered unto all men by the preaching of the gospel (for, that very many are not made partakers of the same, it is through their own fault), yet is it not indeed communicated but unto those, who (being from the beginning chosen and predestinate unto it in Christ, as in the Head of all the elect, that they should be His members and so made partakers of salvation) were afterwards in their time called by the gospel, endowed with faith and so grafted into Christ and made one with Him (Mark 16:15-16).

Chapter XIIII.
The gospel--what it is.

Concerning the gospel therefore, according to the signification received and used in the church, we believe that it is nothing else but the heavenly doctrine concerning Christ, preached by Christ Himself and the apostles, and contained in the books of the New Testament, bringing the best and most gladsome tidings to the worldnamely, that mankind is redeemed by the death of Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God. So that there is prepared for all men, if they repent and believe in Jesus Christ, a free remission of all their sins, salvation, and eternal life (Matt. 3:2). Wherefore it is fitly called of the apostle, the gospel of our salvation (Eph. 1:13).
Heidelberg Catechism

It was written in 1562 primarily by Caspar Olevianus, the superintendent of the Palatinate church, and Zacharias Ursinus, a professor of the theological faculty of the University of Heidelberg. It was accepted at the annual synod of the Palatinate church in 1563.
However, The Heidelberg Catechism is not the product of just two men. The authors of the Catechism benefited from the knowledge and wisdom of others who led the process of Reformation. NOTE: The process of formulation involved the whole Reformed church community. James I. Good writes:
There were, in the main, four sources of the Heidelberg Catechism.
1/ The Strasburg catechisms by Capito, Bucer, and Zell.
2/ The Zurich Catechisms of Leo Juda, Bullinger.
3/ Calvin's catechisms 1537 and 1541, Sometimes also Calvin's "Institutes."
4/ The Lascho catechisms, Lascho's, Micronius, the London compend, and Emden.

To which the vast majority of the Refomed Churches agreed with The Heidelberg. And we see in it – question 37…

The Heidelberg Catechism (1563) of the German Reformed Church in answer to the thirty-seventh question:

Question 37. What dost thou understand by the words, "He suffered"?

Answer: That he, all the time that he lived on earth, but especially at the end of his life, sustained in body and soul, the wrath of God against the sins of all mankind: (a) that so by his passion, as the only propitiatory sacrifice, (b) he might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, (c) and obtain for us the favour of God, righteousness and eternal life. (d)

(a) Isa.53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 1 Pet.2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. 1 Pet.3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 1 Tim.2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. (b) Isa.53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. Isa.53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. Eph.5:2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour. 1 Cor.5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: 1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. 1 John 4:10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Rom.3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; Heb.9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. Heb.10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. (c) Gal.3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: Col.1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: Heb.9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. 1 Pet.1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; 1 Pet.1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: (d) Rom.3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 2 Cor.5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. Heb.9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. Heb.10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Martin Bucer and Zwingli were in complete agreement with the Catechism, which includes the answer to question 37 as well.

As I said, Sorry for the drive by posting but it is the best I can do at present.
 

Allan

Active Member
Jarthur001 said:
I had no idea this was the guy you pulled from, for he did not make the list himself. I have seen this before he wrote his little paper.

The point is...lets go back to the source. For him, or anyone to quote somone, we need to make sure we do it fairly.

Lets be clear as to what Calvinist do believe on this. Christ work on the cross had the power to save all of mankind. The atonment was not a picture as it was in the OT. Christ death paid it all, and was done only once. At that very point in time, the atonement was finished. Christ laid down his life for His sheep.

The atonement was a love act by God. Do you love all ladies the same as you love your wife? Do you think God loved other nations of the OT as He did the Jews? If you told your wife you loved her, but you loved all ladies just as much as her, what kind of love would she feel? If God loved all nations just as the Jews in the OT, just what was the point?

Christ work on the cross had the power to save all mankind. Any that come to Christ, is washed in the blood. But God also knew who would not come when He called all men to Him. Did Christ die for those that had died before He was born, and had believed in His death? Yes. Christ did not die for those in the ground,...those that died 200 years before,....or those that died in the flood.... that had never believed. This idea cheapens Gods love, just as you would cheapen your wifes love.
Yes the atonement was an act of Love, no question.
God loves mankind, but does not love all men the same.
He commands me to do the same.
He commands me to love my enemies, AND He commands me to love my wife. Both use the same greek word, so does that mean I must love my enemies with the same love as my wife? Hardly. We are to love all in a compassionate and reaching way, but not in the same manner we love our beloveds for whom we are to give ourselves for (even to our death).

God so loved the world (wicked sinful man) that He gave His most precious Son, that 'whosoever' (those He forknew) would believe in him should not perish but have everlasting life.

So as you SHOULD be able to see, my loving other women IN NO WAY cheapens the Love I have for my wife because it is not the 'same' love and scripture bears witness to it as well.
Just as we are to love our enemies, God says we are to love the brethren.
But God also says that we are to 'prefer' the brethren. Showing there is to be a distinction in love that is given. They both are in essense the same but different in manifestation and application.

I thought you knew this stuff James??
 

Jarthur001

Active Member
Allan said:
Yes the atonement was an act of Love, no question.
God loves mankind, but does not love all men the same.
He commands me to do the same.
He commands me to love my enemies, AND He commands me to love my wife. Both use the same greek word, so does that mean I must love my enemies with the same love as my wife? Hardly. We are to love all in a compassionate and reaching way, but not in the same manner we love our beloveds for whom we are to give ourselves for (even to our death).

God so loved the world (wicked sinful man) that He gave His most precious Son, that 'whosoever' (those He forknew) would believe in him should not perish but have everlasting life.

So as you SHOULD be able to see, my loving other women IN NO WAY cheapens the Love I have for my wife because it is not the 'same' love and scripture bears witness to it as well.
Just as we are to love our enemies, God says we are to love the brethren.
But God also says that we are to 'prefer' the brethren. Showing there is to be a distinction in love that is given. They both are in essense the same but different in manifestation and application.

I thought you knew this stuff James??

Being that it is clear that Gods love is not the same for all, you will then understand why Christ said...Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

If we were to change the wording to..."that a man lay down his life for everybody"...then the word love would be pointless.

lets look at the context..

The context is about love. Christ is showing how much he loves them..
9As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.

10If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

11These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.

12This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.

13Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

14Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

15Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

16Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

>>>>>Now notice the contrast of love and hate..

17These things I command you, that ye love one another.

18If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.

19If 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.

20Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

21But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me.

22If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin.

23He that hateth me hateth my Father also.

If Christ in this passage wanted to show his love to those He had choosen and I feel this is the point of the passage, then when He says..."Greater love"...this statement is to show just how great His love was for his choosen found in verse 16 (But I chse you). If this included the world, then again the statement would have no point. But it did not include the world which hated Him...the statement was just to His friends..the oes He loved...the ones He chose....the ones He died for.

Also please note this...

In verse 19...the reason they would be hated, was because they were chosen. This is the same reason the jews were hated. They were picked out from the rest of the world...and the world now hates them for this reason.

I can relate to this statement. If I claim to be elect..choosen by God, some hate me for say this.

Somethings never change
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Allan

Active Member
Jarthur001 said:
Being that it is clear that Gods love is not the same for all, you will then understand why Christ said...Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

If we were to change the wording to..."that a man lay down his life for everybody"...then the word love would be pointless.

lets look at the context..

The context is about love. Christ is showing how much he loves them..

>>>>>Now notice the contrast of love and hate..

If Christ in this passage wanted to show his love to those He had choosen and I feel this is the point of the passage, then when He says..."Greater love"...this statement is to show just how great His love was for his choosen found in verse 16 (But I chse you). If this included the world, then again the statement would have no point. But it did not include the world which hated Him...the statement was just to His friends..the oes He loved...the ones He chose....the ones He died for.

Also please note this...

In verse 19...the reason they would be hated, was because they were chosen. This is the same reason the jews were hated. They were picked out from the rest of the world...and the world now hates them for this reason.

I can relate to this statement. If I claim to be elect..choosen by God, some hate me for say this.

Somethings never change
Can you not see your main problem with your text James?
WHO are the FRIENDS He is speaking of??
... and...
WHO has He chosen and appointed??
THE TWELVE. (including Judas) :eek:

Now you get yourself into a very sticky position if you are ASSUMING this is referning to salvaiton (as though to signify for whom [the elect] He is dieing - which it is not). The entire context of the passage you quoted is about a relationship - yes, as in abiding (active present tense) IN His LOVE.
9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.
10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.
12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
Notice Jesus uses the you (plural) in speaking with ALL of his present disciples.
Jesus is declaring the simple truth that if you do that which he asks, it is proof of their fellowship/relationship CURRENTLY with Him. Remember, preceding this was the illistration of abiding in the vine. (already IN CHRIST) Again not speaking of salvation but relational. Look at the rest in light of context:

Jesus said:
13Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
This all by its lonesome COULD be an argument for your position. However with the preceding and suceding verses it shows that line of thinking a theological presupposition.

The rest:
14Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you
Jhn 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and [that] your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
Jhn 15:17 These things I command you, that ye love one another.
Which specifies the context is relational and NOT salvic.
Jesus's death is for his friends and THEY (OF the twelve) are his friends IF they will continue in His word and keep His commands.
(Are we know in a works salvation?) No, it is discribing the relationship between Himself and His disciples/friends.

This is why Jesus NO LONGER CALLS THEM SERVANTS.
Now wait a minute. I thought when we are/were not in Christ we are enemies of God, haters even, and never called SERVANTS.?

Again, unless you hold to a works based salvaiton. One can be a good servant and them be rewarded with one day (by keeping the commands and abiding) be rewarded as being Gods Friend and no longer a servant.

However, unfortunately Jesus once again proclaims specifically WHO He is refering to in this passage (chapter 15 through chapter 17).

He chose them and appointed them (the 12) TO BEAR FRUIT - This pertains to the 12 Disciples to which He is addressing and in directly correlary to the Vine and branches/bringing forth much fruit shown previously. And even Judas will bear the fruit for which He was chosen and appointed to bring forth but that fruit is not the fruit of His Vine and therefore it will be cast into the fire. This discourse it for the encouragement, benifit, and preperation of (specifically) the 11 because of what will transpire for the that point forward since His death was drawing nigh.

This is NOT about savlation but abiding and proof of that abiding. The "choosing" in these passages are specifically about being chosen to a purpose and NOT specifically about salvation. You are bringing your theological presuppositions to the text and bending every which way.

As you continue reading it is evendent even to a greater degree it is the disciples (the 11) which Jesus is addressing and speaking about, regarding what they will face and what they have to hope in as they rest in His peace.

Rom 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
Col 1:21 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in [your] mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled
It doesn't sound like we were considered Christ's Friends for which He died, But His enemies.
And AFTER being reconsiled we are IN a Relationship with Him thereby called His friends IF we continue in His commands and Love. (Perseverance of the Saints)


PS... The contrasting of Love and Hate is SPECIFIC to the relationship ALREADY obtained. The world hates them because they are no longer of the World but have been chosen out from it. The hated does not stem from being 'chosen' and they are not, as you suppose. But specificall that since they are no long of THEM and their Nature but of a Godly and God fearing nature they must by 'nature' hate them since the two oppose one another. REmember, the World LOVES it OWN, what is not of the World is hated by the World.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Benjamin

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Allan said:
I appologize for not being here and giving quick answers, but I have a great deal that needs to be getting done (most specifically with a church start that I will Pastor in 3 weeks) but many other things as well.

Congratulations and blessing Allan!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top