Rippon said:
RJP : Please tell me where John Calvin used the allegorical method ? He repudiated that school of interpretation as did all the Reformers . Calvin even called that hermeneutic Satanic .
Once again I find that I have mis-stated in that it is incorrect to apply the term "allegorical", when a preferred term is "spiritual". I must at the outset confess some personal degree of confusion in that
both of these terms mean that the Scripture has some other meaning than a normal contextual literal grammatical historical meaning. Hermeneutics class has been too many years ago, mid to late 70's. While the allegorical method assumes that the real meaning of the text is something behind the literal wording of the text, the spiritual method only does this sometimes, and even then usually on the basis of reading the NT back over the OT. Certainly the "spiritual method" is much less arbitrary and applied only in some passages as opposed to the allegorical method which is totally arbitrary and applied at the whim of the interpreter.
For me, I see little difference in the outcome, as far as Calvin is concerned in passages concerning Israel, the church, baptism, the kingdom, the covenants, et al. In looking through Institutes last night, I was again stricken with how commonly Calvin substitutes a "spiritual meaning" for the clear words of the text.
I will go to one of the first topics I checked out, paedobaptism...
"I may add, that I will study so to arrange this discussion, that it will tend, in no small degree, still farther to illustrate the subject of baptism. The argument by which paedobaptism is assailed is, no doubt, specious, viz., that it is not founded on the institution of God, but was introduced merely by human presumption and depraved curiosity" (Book 4, Chap 16 A, Par 1)
"2. In the first place, then, it is a well-known doctrine, and one as
to which all the pious are agreed - that the right consideration of signs does not lie merely in the outward ceremonies but depends chiefly on the promise and the spiritual mysteries, to typify which, the ceremonies themselves are appointed. He, therefore, who would thoroughly understand the effect of baptism - its object and true character - must not stop short at the element and corporeal object, but look
forward to the divine promises which are therein offered to us, and rise to the internal secrets which are therein represented. He who understands these has reached the solid truth, and, so to speak, the whole substance of baptism, and will thence perceive the nature and use of outward sprinkling. On the other hand, he who passes them by in contempt, and keeps his thoughts entirely fixed on the visible ceremony, will neither understand the force, nor the proper nature of baptism, nor comprehend what is meant, or what end is gained by the use of water." (Book 4, Chap 16 A, Par 2)
"3. Now, since prior to the institution of baptism, the people of God had circumcision in its stead, let us see how far these two signs differ, and how far they resemble each other. In this way it will appear what analogy there is between them.
When the Lord enjoins Abraham to observe circumcision (Gen_17:10), he premises that he would be a God unto him and to his seed, adding, that in himself was a perfect sufficiency of all things, and that Abraham might reckon on his hand as a fountain of every blessing.
These words include the promise of eternal life, as our Saviour interprets when he employs it to prove the immortality and resurrection of blievers: "God," says he, "is not the God of the dead, but of the living" (Mat_22:32).... We have, therefore, a spiritual promise given to the fathers in circumcision, similar to that which is given to us in baptism, since it figured to them both the forgiveness of sins and the mortification of the flesh. Besides, as we have shown that Christ, in whom both of these reside, is the foundation of baptism, so must he also be the foundation of circumcision." (Book 4, Chap 16 A, Par 3)
"5. Now, if we are to investigate whether or not baptism is justly given to infants, will we not say that the man trifles, or rather is delirious, who would stop short at the element of water, and the external observance, and not allow his mind to rise to the spiritual mystery? If reason is listened to, it will undoubtedly appear that baptism is properly administered to infants as a thing due to them.
The Lord did not anciently bestow circumcision upon them without making them partakers of all the things signified by circumcision. He would have deluded his people with mere imposture, had he quieted them with fallacious symbols: the very idea is shocking. I is distinctly declares, that the circumcision of the infant will be instead of a seal of the promise of the covenant. But if the covenant remains firm and fixed, it is no less applicable to the children of Christians in the present day, than to the children of the Jews under the Old Testament.
Now, if they are partakers of the thing signified, how can they be denied the sign? If they obtain the reality, how can they be refused the figure?" (Book 4, Chap 16 A, Par 5)
Suffice it to say, that Calvin imposes upon the text of Holy Writ such meaning as fits his predetermined theology, inherited from those who did use the allegorical method. Certainly this is potentially a great danger for all of us and we would be self deluded to believe that our own preconceptions do not tend to color our understanding of the Scriptures.
How the reformers could reject the romish concepts of salvation by any means other that grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, and at the same time fail to grasp the promises to Abraham as having tangible meaning regarding the promises to his seed through Isaac and Jacob is a tribute to concept of
progressive illumination. The truth had been revealed in the Scriptures, but the Holy Spirit was shining the light of understanding primarily upon the more basic issue of our salvation. This was the primary concern of the reformers and therefore there was little attention paid to the fact that the RCC had spiritualized clear OT promises to Israel in the Abrahamic, Land, and Davidic covenants. When the reformers came to Israel or Zion in the NT they just automatically "read" that as "the church". Herein they failed to literally interpret and forcefully contend for God’s promises to His elect nation, though they zealously contended that His promises to the elect of the Church should be interpreted quite literally and that none of His promises to NT believers should ever fail. I have heard this referred to as "the incomplete reformation".
Again, pardon my failure in that I used the term "allegorical"when a more appropriate term would have been "spiritual" interpretation. I should have recalled the distinction, but again, it has been about 30 years since I last gave much attention to other methods of interpretation besides the literal grammatical historical method.
Only a contextual literal grammatical historical hermeneutic will rightly divide the truth. This was my intent in the earlier post. 
If Christ is saying that He will draw all men (as in every individual rather than all races of men) then that would point to a universal revelation of Christ. We know that Christ has not been revealed to all men. Ask those on the mission field. They will testify that there are many tribes of men who have never heard of Christ. They will testify that their deceased family members have never heard of Christ. I don't think due to that, that we can use this "all men" as a universal meaning. I think it would be all races of men. There you have it. My Humble Opinion brother. What do you think?