How do Calvinists interpret John 3:16

[Allan]

Allan , I have told you before that Calvin updated his Institutes several times . His fith and last edition was in 1559 , six years before his death . He did not "mature" his thoughts on predestination .

Calvin wrote " A Treatise On The eternal Predestination Of God " , shortly before his death in 1564 . He particularly took issue with Albertus Pighius & co. There's a book with Calvin's arguments and the words of his opponents . It's called : Calvin's Calvinism . The translator is Henry Cole .

The fiction of Pighius is puerile and absurd , when he interprets grace to be God's goodness in inviting all men to salvation , though all were lost in Adam . For Paul most clearly separates the foreknown from those on whom deigned not to look in mercy ... He ( pighius0 holds fast the fiction that grace is offered equally to all , but that it is ultimately rendered effectual by the will of man , just as each one is willing to receive it . (p.49-51)

That the Gospel is , in its nature , able to save all I by no means deny . But the great question lies here : Did the Lord by His eternal counsel ordain salvation for all men ? it is quite manifest that all men , without difference or distinction , are outwardly called or invited to repentance and faith . It is equally evident that the same Mediator is set forth before all , as he who alone can reconcile them to the father . But it is fully well known that none of these things can be understood or perceived but by faith , in fulfillment of the apostle Paul's declaration that 'the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth', then what can it be to others but the 'savour of death unto death' as the same apostle elsewhere powerfully expresses himself . (p.93-950

Interesting - But I never said anything about predestination but that Johns view on Christ dieing for All men changed. Here are some other excerts:

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.)

John 3:16, he said: ". . . The Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish.'' 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.''

Such an understanding of this verse and the words employed in it is certainly not in keeping with many who claim to be Calvinists, as the following pages will reveal. Another illustration of Calvin's view is to be found in his explanation of:

Matthew 26:28. ". . .This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." He says: "Under the name of many he designates not a part of the world only, but the whole human race" [Underline is mine]

Romans 5:18 says: "Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men."

Regarding this verse, John Calvin says:
"He makes this favor common to all, because it is propoundable to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all [i.e., in their experience]; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive Him."

However with due regard to the whole predestination/foreknew/election argument it is one not from scripturally substantiated design but of philosophical extrapilation with regard to texts. It has NEVER been a proven or provable VIEW, since it of itself is not Truth but a view OF that truth. This is why it is still dabated even today with regard to the Immutable truths we ALL hold so dear.

 

[Martin]

The fact that you call yourself a Calvinist means that you follow Calvin. If you only follow scripture, you should not call yourself a Calvinist.

Anyone who knows anything about what is called Calvinism, Reformed Theology, or the Doctrines of Grace, knows the above statement is not correct. The doctrines of Calvinism were believed before the life of John Calvin and many Calvinists come to believe in Calvinism apart from studying the works of John Calvin.

 

[Amy.G]

Do you call yourself a Baptist?

Yes. I follow Baptist doctrine. Pastor Larry said Calvinists do not follow Calvin. If I did not follow Baptist doctrine, I wouldn't call myself a Baptist.

 

[Allan]

Well, for one thing, Calvinists don't follow Calvin. They don't believe something because Calvin did.

Granted and I should have been a little more discerning in my choice of words there. My appolgies for I know you are a follower of Christ and His word. But in a sense (and a sense only) you do follow the 'teaching' of Calvin and all those who hold to the same theological bent use his teaching as their standard or with regard to truth. So in this sense you do follow Calvin as his work is the guide for all who hold his view.
John Calvin established as a system of theological construct known as Calvinism.
It was not a systemized theological process until John Calvin formulated it and brought it forth but was in the past a disjointed system (as in not formulated as it is now) of thought that had not been properly set forth and articualated as of yet. Though many Calvinist do not fully follow the whole teaching of John Calvin (which is Presbitarianism) they do hold to its 5 essential elements that constitute the basis of the doctrine he held, known to us as the 5 points or TULIP derived not by him (I don't 'think' he personally would have appreciated people taking bits of his theology and not the whole IMO) but others who studied his veiw. It 'seems' to many that in light of this one is a follower of Calvin to better know God.

Calvinist believe that the offer of salvation is indiscriminate.

True, but they do not hold that God is really offering that salvation TO all, just telling all about it.

If you read enough of Calvin

I am actaully almost through both his institutes (3/4) and his Commentaries (85%) and I will say some of it is dizzying but I also see much truth as well.
... you'll understand that he doesn't mean by this that God is actually reconciled

to every person who has ever lived. Calvin believed that God reconciled the world, but that there were people in the world to whom he was not reconciled.

I no of no one (non-Cal) who would disagree with this statment.

For example, read Calvin's commentary on 1 John 2:2 where he denies that the propitiation extends to the reprobate.

So then either he is inconsistant in his theology or wrong on some point of it.
As I have shown in just a couple of places in his 'Commentaries" (and yes there are more but I just use these three for now) but...well look at Mat 26 as an example and his comments:

Matthew 26:28. ". . .This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." He says: "Under the name of many he designates not a part of the world only, but the whole human race"QUOTE]
Christ died for the sins of the whole world and not for the sins of the elect only. If Christ died FOR the sins of the whole world then by necessity of that sacrifice it is extended to toward all THAT all MAY partake IF they will but believe. Yet is stands as a contriction to his commentary of I John 2:2 of the sacrifice being on behalf of All Man.

It was said a little earlier: Calvin is a man and therefore fallible (parphrase) I agree. But I find that when his view is challanged most hold him as infallible.

Calvinists believe that God invites all without exception to faith in Christ.

True but you don't believe that God intends to honor that invitation all who are invited. Kinda like me passing out an invitation to a party but only on some special invitations does it say when and where.

No Calvinists I know believe that God offers salvation only to his elect. God saves the elect, but the offer is indiscriminate.

THis final statement is inaccurate and misleading. I agree that Calvinists DO believe that God offers salvation to all but that offer IS IN FACT discriminate due to God intending to honor only some or part of those He offers it to.
OR better He never intends to honor the offer to those who are not of the elect. So His offer to the portion NOT Elect is meaningless and an empty promise. Basically a lie.

 

[Allan]

Why is that important? Do you really believe that Calvinists follow Calvin? Calvinists are Calvinists because of what we believe the Scripture teaches, not because of what Calvin teaches, or taught, or supposedly taught.

That is not technically true. You are a Calvinist because the systematic theology you adhear to was formulated articulately by John Calvin. You are not following Cavlin but are following after his theological teachings OF scripture. This does not make you a worshipper of Calvin unless you hold him as infallible. Though the understanding of Calvinistic principles were known since Augustine, they had no real construct in a systemized view that was studied as a whole until Calvin and is why it named after the man who formulated this system.

Because Calvinists don't follow Calvin; they follow Scripture.

I know.

Study what "reconciled" means and the way it is used. This is a very interesting study in light of 2 Cor 5, Col 1, and other passages.

Have studied it, taught it, and even preached on it. What I was showing is that though believers are already reconciled (past tence) God is still reconciling the World (present continual tense).

This is technically incorrect. He does not "invite" all to faith; he commands all to believe. And he does so without exception and without distinction.

This is technically incorrect. God commands all to believe without exception (granted and agreed) but without distinction is the part incorrectly ascribed. There is a huge disctinction here as God (in Calvinism) commands all to repent and believe but does not intend on the non-elect to obey because He wont allow them to. God makes some believe and will not make others.

You have conflated a few things here. First, specific or limited atonement has nothing to do with the offer of salvation. Second, salvation is offered to all, not only to the elect. Third, atonement or salvation is not the same thing. Fourth, the issue of limited atonement deals with a couple of things: 1) the definition and nature of atonement; 2) the intent or design of the atonement.

Ok, granted.
2. No, it is displayed for all that God can but is not actually offered but to those whom God Elected (in the Calvinistic sense) If there is no intent to honor this to all whom it is offered then it stands as a falsehood because it is only partially true toward some and not others.

3.Atonment and salvation are not the same thing - Granted in their definitions but they are inseperable in functionality and purpose. You can not have the salvation of God apart from the Atonment but conversly you can not have the atonment without the promise of said salvation. One dwells in the fulness of the other.


IMO you define The Atonment of Christ incorrectly which in turn gives you and incorrect view of the intent and design of that Atonment. IF Christ didn't die and shed His blood for the Elect ONLY then your view of the design and intent MUST take on a new meaning.

 

[Allan]

To say that simply because verse 12 of John 1 comes before verse 13 means that you have to believe before being born again, I think is twisting scripture.

First off, I NEVER stated that. I simply showed that 13 discribes the event of 12. John wrote what he meant via the Holy Spirit and said what God and how God wanted him to say it. Born in 13 is a direct reference to that which transpired OF God in 12 (He gave the right to be CALLED the Sons of God - Salvation)

Allan, if you have to believe before being born again, that is an exercise of the will. Men are not born again by the will of man, but of God. I don't know how to put it any simpler.

Ok - just for the sake of discussion- if the man believing is an excersize of mans will then what is the "WILL of the flesh" that the scripture is talking about??

But... You are correct that men are not born agian of will of Man (which simply means as spoken of in multiple areas of scripture) meaning without God. Man can not save OF himself or by himself, save himself but that salvation is something done by God alone. There in not one non-cal I know who does not affirm this.

You really think that is only being writen to Jews? It was in the OT, but it was being referenced here in Romans to Jew and Gentile. Do I really have to supply the scripture for proof?

Seeing that scripture records this in the prophets as Gods Judgment being DUE TO THEIR UNBELIEF previously, you bet! Yes it was being refrenced in Romams CONCERNING God blinding the Jews so the gospel could go out to the Gentiles. Not that God blinded the gentiles. Which verse are you speaking of in Romans??

Quote:
Jhn 5:24 ¶ Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Allan, those who hear already have everlasting life, they have been born again (passed from death unto life) (They were not born of the will of man but God.) Any way you look at it, this verse of scripture is not saying that you have to believe before being born again.

You have absolutely NO scriptural support for your contention of regeneration before salvation as it is based on pure philosophy. Especially here! They that hear AND believed have eternal life and will not be condemned. It is all one train of thought in the Greek and in English. They are not born again then hear, scripture does not say, allude, nor infer such. But the latter of the verse contends they were dead and now alive but what was previously stated is that they have ETERNAL Life and not just alive. This is about salvation and before they were given Eternal Life they were Dead.

I'm not going to show you again where one who believes, do so because they are born of God, not the will of man.

To my knowledge we have never actually engaged in scriptural references before with regard to this issue. You have always stated this and not given scripture to substantiate it. (but that is to my knowledge at current - I do forget sometimes) Oh - are you refering to John 1:12-13 Please show me your exegsis of those passages which show regeneration before salvation by showing via the literal reading concerning word for word and in allowing the words in context to define themselves and their functional process.

But if not - then what I stated stands without error.

Regeneration is being born again. Again, one is born again of God, not man (John 1:13)

Granted because both refer to salvation and salvation is something that without God man is left with no hope.

Yes, God enters the picture when He causes one to be born again.

You still have yet (nor anyone in Calvinism) to conclusivly show or prove scripturally that regeneration is before salvation. It is a Philosophical view and one that has to be read into scripture holding to presupposition and redefination of terms.

I don't follow John Calvin, I follow the Word of God.

I never said you did, and believe you follow the Word just as I do according to our understanding of the Word and the mechanics of His immutable Truths.

Don't go under the impression I think you are without understanding I just think you have a different view.

 

[Allan]

No it doesn't. "Calvinism" existed long before it became known by Calvin's name.

I would prefer to call myself a biblicist, but too many people do not know what that means. Calvinism is the name historically given to those who believe certain things that the Bible teaches about salvation, just as every label serves as a kind of shorthand for a set of beliefs. We follow only Scripture and would prefer that we be called biblicists. Will you help us attain that?

The Non-Cals call themselves biblicists and have been for as long as I can remember. Will you help us attain that as well??
I will help you if you help me.

 

[Pastor Larry]

You are a Calvinist because the systematic theology you adhear to was formulated articulately by John Calvin.

No, we are a Calvinist because we believe Scripture teaches certain things about salvation. It is true that Calvin’s name was attached to them, but the teachings, we believe, are found in Scripture.

Though the understanding of Calvinistic principles were known since Augustine,

Actually, the principles go back several hundred years to the time of the apostles.

God … does not intend on the non-elect to obey because He wont allow them to. God makes some believe and will not make others.

This is patently false. God does not “not allow” some to believe. They refuse to believe. He is more than willing to accept them if they will believe. Furthermore, he doesn’t “make others” believe. They believe willingly because of their new nature.

If there is no intent to honor this to all whom it is offered then it stands as a falsehood because it is only partially true toward some and not others.

No, it is completely true towards all. God will honor his command in all who respond.

You can not have the salvation of God apart from the Atonment but conversly you can not have the atonment without the promise of said salvation. One dwells in the fulness of the other.

Correct on the first, not on the second.

IMO you define The Atonment of Christ incorrectly which in turn gives you and incorrect view of the intent and design of that Atonment. IF Christ didn't die and shed His blood for the Elect ONLY then your view of the design and intent MUST take on a new meaning.

What is my definition of the atonement that you are responding to?

The Non-Cals call themselves biblicists and have been for as long as I can remember. Will you help us attain that as well??
I will help you if you help me.

No, because I don't think you are true biblicists. I think there are parts of the Bible that you cannot fully affirm. The reason why non-Cals call themselves biblicists is because they do not want to be called Arminians, which is what they really are. As I have previously pointed out, this is binary. A person either believes God unconditionally elects individuals to salvation (Calvinist) or they don't (Arminian). I have pleaded for someone to show me a middle ground and no one has been able to do so.

 

[Scott J]

So salvation does precede faith? Otherwise, what comes after belief? Nothing would happen as a result of believing, right? So, in the reformed view, faith is a fruit of salvation.

That isn't what I said so why would you act as if it were?

 

[Scott J]

Once you are regenerated, it is impossible that you would not have faith.

If you are alive then it is impossible for you not to metabolize... Is that a violation of your will?

In fact, in your view, the faith comes almost simultaneously with, but after regeneration. It just seems like faith is a bit of a formality in your view.

IMO, trying to order it chronologically is useless if not a hinderance.

I think it is more a matter of preeminence than an order in time. Salvation is of God. God is timeless. It seems to strip Him of glory and sovereignty to try to restrict Him by our conception of time.

IOW's, rather than "What came first?" ask "What is first necessary in a cause/effect relationship?"

Hopefully, we can all agree that God is the prime cause of all creation without making Him guilty of every evil that has come as a later effect. By that same reasoning, God can be the cause of salvation for the elect by a special creation of a new spirit within us while bearing no guilt whatsoever concerning those who choose of their sinful nature to reject Him.

 

[webdog]

No, because I don't think you are true biblicists. I think there are parts of the Bible that you cannot fully affirm.

...and this might be the reason we do not call calvinists "biblicists". We subscribe to the same thought pattern.

The reason why non-Cals call themselves biblicists is because they do not want to be called Arminians, which is what they really are.

To state that all non cal's are arminians in not accurate in the least. I do not believe I can freely come to God...nor "jump out of His hand" at will. To borrow one of your lines..."please learn something" about the non cal position.

As I have previously pointed out, this is binary. A person either believes God unconditionally elects individuals to salvation (Calvinist) or they don't (Arminian)

Again, you do not represent ALL non calvinist's positions....only one. Are you a 4 or 5 pointer? Are 4 pointers arminians, since techinically all 5 points need to be adhered to in order to be called a calvinist? Are 4 pointers "biblicists"?

I have pleaded for someone to show me a middle ground and no one has been able to do so.

...or do you just refuse to see it?

 

[reformedbeliever]

Yes. I follow Baptist doctrine. Pastor Larry said Calvinists do not follow Calvin. If I did not follow Baptist doctrine, I wouldn't call myself a Baptist.

Do you know how many different types of Baptist there are? Which Baptist doctrine do you follow? It has been explained to you that we do not follow Calvin, but we do follow Biblical doctrine. I would imagine that you think following "Baptist" doctrine is Biblical?

 

[reformedbeliever]

Well Allan, if I provided scripture which in my (and many other Calvinists) opinion makes salvation monergistic, which we have been over many times in the past, it would not change your position. You are synergistic, according to what I think you believe. Is this true? That may be a point in which maybe we could discuss, to determine more about the scriptures we disagree. Please don't ask that I beat a dead horse, lets just cut to the chase here and determine if you think salvation is all of God or if we help Him in the process.

 

[Pastor Larry]

.and this might be the reason we do not call calvinists "biblicists". We subscribe to the same thought pattern.

The difference is that we are correct on what the Bible teaches, inasmuch as we can explain all the relevant passages, whereas there aer passages that your side simply cannot give legitimate explanations of. That is why we should be called biblicists.

To state that all non cal's are arminians in not accurate in the least. I do not believe I can freely come to God...nor "jump out of His hand" at will.

Neither do Arminians. Perhaps you should "please learn something" about the non cal position.

Again, you do not represent ALL non calvinist's positions....only one. Are you a 4 or 5 pointer? Are 4 pointers arminians, since techinically all 5 points need to be adhered to in order to be called a calvinist? Are 4 pointers "biblicists"?

Four pointers are typically actually five pointers by the way limited atonement is traditionally defined. And all five points do not need to be adhered to be a Calvinist. The door hinges on unconditional election. Either you believe it (Calvinist) or you don’t (arminian). Where is the third option.

...or do you just refuse to see it?

I am perfectly willing to see it. Please show it to me. Please tell me where you fall between God unconditionally elects and God does not unconditionally elect.

 

[russell55]

So then either he is inconsistant in his theology or wrong on some point of it.
As I have shown in just a couple of places in his 'Commentaries" (and yes there are more but I just use these three for now) but...well look at Mat 26 as an example and his comments:

No, I just think you misunderstand what Calvin means when he uses the word world and other universal terms. He uses them, as he explains in his commentary on 1 John 2:2, to refer to " the whole church, or to " those who should believe", including "those scattered throughout various parts of the world."

But this is all a big red herring, because what Calvin said about any particular verse or verses means very little to me. I didn't come to my view by reading Calvin, and I never quote Calvin in support of my arguments, so I don't know why I need to answer for what he says, either.

I agree that Calvinists DO believe that God offers salvation to all but that offer IS IN FACT discriminate due to God intending to honor only some or part of those He offers it to.
OR better He never intends to honor the offer to those who are not of the elect.

No, God intends to honor the offer to every single person, without exception, who believes.

 

[pinoybaptist]

There is no offer of eternal salvation to anyone, not even the elect, and therefore God is not under obligation to honor anyone, or honor an offer because He never made any to anyone.
He saved His people on the basis of His decision to do so, answerable to no one but Himself, and He did not save them without a price. He saved them with His Son's blood as the price.
This is in answer to that part of Allan's post quoted by Russell55.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

Webdog, do you think the act of believeing is an exercise of the will? I do. Men are not born again by the will of man, but of God. John 1:13

How does that fit with the story of the rich young ruler? He decided that the price to follow Jesus was higher than he was willing to pay. This is in direct contract to the story of Zachaeus who willingly took up the "yoke of Christ."

 

[webdog]

The difference is that we are correct on what the Bible teaches, inasmuch as we can explain all the relevant passages, whereas there aer passages that your side simply cannot give legitimate explanations of. That is why we should be called biblicists.

Eisegesis doesn't count

Neither do Arminians. Perhaps you should "please learn something" about the non cal position.

You didn't know that arminians believe they could lose their salvation...and achieve salvation on their own? Wow. You know even less about the non cal position than I thought. What would you consider a catholic to be?

Four pointers are typically actually five pointers by the way limited atonement is traditionally defined. And all five points do not need to be adhered to be a Calvinist.

Prove it...

The door hinges on unconditional election. Either you believe it (Calvinist) or you don’t (arminian). Where is the third option.

The third option is what most Christmas calvinists hold to...the door hinging on the "L", not the "U".

 

[Pastor Larry]

Eisegesis doesn't count

Which is why the arminian position does not hold water. It involves too much eisegesis and too little exegesis. If you show me a passage Calvinists can’t deal with, you will be the first.

You didn't know that arminians believe they could lose their salvation.

Some do. Not all.

and achieve salvation on their own?

Arminians don’t believe this. Arminians believe in total depravity with a prevenient grace that restores the ability to man.

You know even less about the non cal position than I thought.

No I don’t. I know more about it than you do, as has been demonstrated for several years. The difference between you and I (among others) is that I have taken time to find out what the other position actually believes.

What would you consider a catholic to be?

How is that relevant here?

Prove it...

Limited atonement means that the atonement was sufficient for all (unlimited) and efficient for the elect (limited). If you ask a four pointer to evaluate that statement, virtually all will agree. If you ask a five pointer to evaluate that statement, virtually all will agree. There are some exceptions on both, but very few. I came to realize this several years ago when I was talking to a five pointer. I claimed to be a four pointer. He asked what I meant. I explained just what I said above. He laughed. He said, “You’re a five pointer. That’s what we all believe.”

What happens so much in this discussion is that people misunderstand the question, or ask it in a way that leads to a particular answer without critical examination of other possibilities.

The door hinges on unconditional election. Either you believe it (Calvinist) or you don’t (arminian). Where is the third option.

The third option is what most Christmas calvinists hold to...the door hinging on the "L", not the "U".

That’s not a third option. That’s a different topic. The discussion of limited or unlimited atonement is a different discussion than that of unconditional or conditional election. They are related, but separate issues. A person can believe in unconditional election and come down on either side of limited atonement. They are Calvinists. If you deny unconditional election, you are an arminian.

So again I ask, where is the third option between unconditional and conditional election? Please don’t try to change the subject (or illustrate you really don’t know what you are talking about by thinking Limited atonement is somehow related to that question).

Seriously, Webdog, as much as we have been through this, why haven’t you learned a few things? As I have often said, you don’t have to agree with us, but at least understand what we believe. It makes no sense for your to continue down this path as long as you have been here.

 

[reformedbeliever]

How does that fit with the story of the rich young ruler? He decided that the price to follow Jesus was higher than he was willing to pay. This is in direct contract to the story of Zachaeus who willingly took up the "yoke of Christ."

How does the story of the rich young ruler fit with my question to webdog about if he thinks that believeing is an act of the will?

Do you think believeing is an act of the will?

The rich young ruler was not born again of God.

Zachaeus was apparently born again of God. He didn't question at all, since he had a new nature. I think that all believers in the OT were believers much the same as believers are today. They are born again of God. Did Abraham question God or just obey? Seems that there was something different about him huh?