How do Calvinists interpret John 3:16

[Amy.G]

I am a "Calvinist", and I say that God says what he means, and means what he says.

Then you must believe as I do....
all actually means all (everyone)
world actually means world (the whole population of the earth)
whosoever actually means whosoever (anyone)

You are definitely different than the Calvinists that I've met.

Yes, God does mean what He says. He draws ALL men to Himself.

 

[johnp.]

Hello OSAS.

We are a plague and a cancer on the Church don't you know? When do you think Lydia made her alter call stand?

It's amazing! They will read "world" and "lost" but see "elect" because Calvinism is what they have so completely sold themselves to.

Richard. When we read the word 'world' we interpret it just as you do. 'World' to most people means the rock we live on doesn't it? This 'world' that Jesus loves so much He doesn't pray for does He? How is He an intercessor for the world when He doesn't pray for it please? John 17:9 I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours.

JER 50:6 "My people have been lost sheep; their shepherds have led them astray and caused them to roam on the mountains. They wandered over mountain and hill and forgot their own resting place.
Since Jesus is the Good Shepherd I would think Jesus found all the lost sheep? Why do you say He failed as the Good Shepherd?

john.

 

[examiningcalvinism]

John

John,

John's Gospel uses the word "world" as the world of people, rather than the planet earth. Here's a link to the way in which it is found in its setting:

http://www.studylight.org/desk/?section=8&sr=0&translation=nas&query=world&st=21&pn=2&l=en

I did not call God a failure. You did. Only a Calvinist would say that God "failed" if someone should reject His offer.

Let me conclude with Calvin:

Calvin writes: “It is incontestable that Christ came for the expiation of the sins of the whole world.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.148)

Calvin comments: “For faith in Christ brings life to everyone, and Christ brought life because the Heavenly Father loves the human race and wishes that they should not perish.” (John: Calvin, The Crossway Classic Commentaries, p.76)

Calvin adds: “He used the broad word ‘whoever’ to invite everyone, indiscriminately, to share this life, and also to leave unbelievers with no excuse. This is the significance of the word ‘world,’ which is used earlier in this verse. For although there is nothing in the ‘world’ which deserves God’s favor, God shows that he himself is reconciled to the whole ‘world’ as he invites everyone, without any exceptions, to have faith in Christ, which is no less than entry into life.” (John: Calvin, The Crossway Classic Commentaries, p.77)

Calvin writes: “Therefore Christ intends that the benefit of his death should extend to everyone; so people who exclude anyone from that hope of salvation are doing Christ a disservice.” (1 & 2 Timothy & Titus: Calvin, The Crossway Classic Commentaries, p.40)

 

[examiningcalvinism]

just in case you wanted to see it twice

here it is.

Also, here is Wesley's commentary on John 17:9: "Verse 9. I pray not for the world - Not in these petitions, which are adapted to the state of believers only. (He prays for the world at John 17:21,23, that they may believe - That they may know God hath sent him.) This no more proves that our Lord did not pray for the world, both before and afterward, than his praying for the apostles alone, John 17:6-19, proves that he did not pray for them also which shall believe through their word, John 17:20."

 

[johnp.]

JN 17:13 "I am coming to you now, but I say these things while I am still in the world, so that they may have the full measure of my joy within them. 14 I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. 15 My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17 Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19 For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.

They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. The believers are not of the world as Jesus is not. Jesus has never been of the world and neither have we. Look how many times Jesus says the same thing, it's rather emphatic isn't it?

john.

 

[johnp.]

Can I call you xam or something?

I did not call God a failure. You did. Only a Calvinist would say that God "failed" if someone should reject His offer.

I'm sorry but I was of the opinion that sheep are not asked anything. Since Christ is The Good Shepherd I would have thought The Good Shepherd would have found all the sheep that He came to find. Since you believe all men are lost and Jesus only found some of them then He has failed to find the lost sheep hence a failure. But since you believe sheep have a choice and slaves are allowed to decide their own masters then anything goes especially the English language.

Let me conclude with Calvin:

Who?

As for the quotes, all I have to say is that he wasn't much of a Calvinist was he? Not like what I am.
I've got two quotes of his I always use. One below.

By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death. (John Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion Book 3 chapter 21:5.)

As one who believes in double predestination I find it difficult to believe Christ died for all men and I would have thought Calvin thought likewise. Your talking to me and fighting the good fight with me not Calvin. I'm not here to defend Calvin or his thoughts but to pass on what I know. You know as well as I do that the never ending debate on whether Calvin was a Calvinist or not or an hyper-Calvinist is never ending. I would rather watch paint dry than to read his stuff.

As for the quotes, have you seen this?

Long my imprisoned spirit lay,
Fast bound in sin and nature’s night;
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray—
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.
Charles Wesley. Much like my conversion that.

john.

 

[examiningcalvinism]

John

To: John P

I'm convinced that Calvin was a 4-Point Supralapsarian.

Wesley, an adherent of Classical Arminianism, affirmed Total Depravity. The dispute between Calvinists and Arminians is NOT whether grace precedes faith, but what kind of grace precedes faith, whether Prevenient Grace or Irresistible Grace.

John P, you can either give up Calvinism now, or you can give it up in heaven. I'm not trying to be cocky or arrogant, but realistic. Calvinism simply is not a viable theology.

If you go the 4-Point route (along with Calvin), then you have to explain how God could love someone that He, allegedly, predestined to Hell.

If you go the 5-Point route, then you have to insert "of the elect" more times than Bil Clinton has cheated on his wife.

The 4-point route is more faithful to the text, but creates serious logic problems which ultimately results in secret will theories (which Calvin employed), while the 5-Point route seriously undermines the integrity of the Scriptures.

You can fight this battle if you wish, but as a former Calvinist, you can either give it up now or later.

 

[Amy.G]

To: John P
The 4-point route is more faithful to the text, but creates serious logic problems which ultimately results in secret will theories (which Calvin employed), while the 5-Point route seriously undermines the integrity of the Scriptures.

You can fight this battle if you wish, but as a former Calvinist, you can either give it up now or later.

That's the truth!:laugh:

Secret theories indeed!

 

[examiningcalvinism]

Amy G

To: Amy G

Calvin employed the secret will theory in at least two places: Matthew 23:37 and 2nd Peter 3:9.

http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Gospels/Matthew23_37.html

John Calvin comments: “Seeing that in His Word He calls all alike to salvation, and this is the object of preaching, that all should take refuge in His faith and protection, it is right to say that He wishes all to gather to Him. Now the nature of the Word shows us that here there is no description of the secret counsel of God (Arcanum Dei consilium)--just His wishes." (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, Matthew, Mark and Luke, Vol. III, James and Jude, p.69)


http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/NT/2Pet3_9.html

John Calvin comments: “It could be asked here, if God does not want any to perish, why do so many in fact perish? My reply is that no mention is made here of the secret decree of God by which the wicked are doomed to their own ruin, but only of His loving-kindness as it is made known to us in the Gospel.” (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: Hebrews and I and II Peter, p.364)

One of my favorite Calvin-quotes is from Romans 9:3 in which he confessed that Paul did not speak like a Calvinist:

John Calvin comments on Romans 9:3: “The more passionate emotions plunge impetuously on, without heed or regard for anything but the object on which they are fixed. Paul, therefore, did not add the election of God to his prayer, but put it out of mind, and gave all his attention on the salvation of the Jews.” (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: Romans and Thessalonians, p.192)

Hey Calvin, maybe Calvinism wasn't in his mind to begin with.

http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Paul/Romans9_3.html

 

[npetreley]

I'm convinced that Calvin was a 4-Point Supralapsarian.

I'm convinced that Calvin had really bad hair.

I still believe in what most people today call Calvinism. If I differ with Calvin on any points, it's probably that I'm more hard core. But, having never read more than a few lines of Calvin, I don't really know (or care).

 

[Rippon]

Mr. EC , I was scanning a couple of books this past weekend . Roger Nicole's " Standing Forth" which combats Kendal's view that Calvin was a believer in universal Atonement and Richard Muller's " The Unaccommodated Calvin" which takes apart , in a very scholarly manner any opinion that Calvin held to a universal atonement . You might want to consult these works before making any hasty conclusions about where Calvion stood on this and other issues .

 

[Allan]

:laugh: I love how only the scholarly Calvinist can interpret John Calvin so as to Keep him and his writtings in check with current understandings of Calvinism.

John Calvin by his own hand in the preface of his Commentaries stated he wrote them so that anyone (and not just scholar) could understand and study them.

 

[johnp.]

xam.
It must be irksome to have studied Calvin to find his weak points to point out to Calvinists that Calvin was Arminian only to find that Calvinists do not really care what he said. All that study and book buying is to no effect. You should have believed us when we told you we do not follow a man but you wouldn't have it.

At least this puts paid to the charge that we do follow men. It seems as if you put more weight on men's words than we do.

I'm convinced that Calvin was a 4-Point Supralapsarian.

Neat trick. Let's talk about his hair.

How does one believe in a universal atonement and supralapsarianism? I thought supralapsarianism believed:

By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death. (John Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion Book 3 chapter 21:5.)

Painted yourself into a corner haven't you?

If you read my post 128 xam you will see I have nothing to say in this matter but Calvin doesn't sound like a Calvinist anymore. I will leave the autopsy to the scholars.
Since God hardened Pharoah's heart for the purpose of causing him to sin I see no reason to worry about secret wills or two wills in God. He has told us that all things occur because He makes it so.

You can fight this battle if you wish, but as a former Calvinist, you can either give it up now or later.

What battle am I fighting?
I have a theory why Calvin never spoke much on the fact that there is a limited atonement and it involves just one verse: Therefore, I swore to the house of Eli, `The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.' " 1 Sam 3:14.

Why should he have wasted ink trying to support an idea already clear and unambiguous in scripture, the atonement falls short of universal as as Eli's house was never given one?

So Allan, 'As you can see. There is no other way to see Calvins own words in any other manner than Christ dieing for all' So what? What does the bible say? But one thing for certain is that all those that attack Calvin here on this thread proves once and for all that Calvinists do not follow men. I have already said that I don't care what he said why persist that what he said influences me?

We have from his own hand his proclaimation that Christ reconsiled Himself to the Whole World through His death.

Since Christ came to reconcile man to God then any failure or success to reconcile men to Himself means what?

You might want to consult these works before making any hasty conclusions about where Calvion stood on this and other issues .

I make nothing out of other people's opinions of where Calvin stood because I don't care where he stood or where they do. What has he or them to do with me?

john.

 

[Allan]

So Allan, 'As you can see. There is no other way to see Calvins own words in any other manner than Christ dieing for all' So what? What does the bible say? But one thing for certain is that all those that attack Calvin here on this thread proves once and for all that Calvinists do not follow men. I have already said that I don't care what he said why persist that what he said influences me?



Since Christ came to reconcile man to God then any failure or success to reconcile men to Himself means what?



I make nothing out of other people's opinions of where Calvin stood because I don't care where he stood or where they do. What has he or them to do with me?

john.

That is exactly my point John. If some people do not follow Calvin then why the huge uproar when quoting his own writting, except there are those who elevate him to an inerrant type status. Yet his own works make the case for a different story (at least in general atonement issue).

I agree most Calvinists do not follow Calvin but then there are some that become hostile when questioning the Holy and Exhaulted Apostles of the Calvinistic View (Calvin, Pink, Gill, ext, and so on). They were Godly men and this I do not dispute but they were not infallible nor were they correct in all their theology. I know some Calvinsts don't venerate these men but respect them, Though I must confess I do like to have a little fun with those that do.

I took a lot of exagerative licence in the above paragraph but even you know there are those who exhalt their words as almost equal with the Holy Writ, and can even elevate these men above their measure.

I don't believe most Baptist Calvinists do much study in Calvins works and therefore I do not say they are followers of John Calvin either. But when a person makes an absolute statement concerning his (Calvins) beliefs and his own writting contradicts that absolute statement made, it should be addressed. But most Calvinists don't study or read Calvins work so how would they know what he actually stated by his own pen.

 

[Rippon]

Dear Allan . Have you ever read books about men of the past ? There are countless books which review the teachings of men such as Edwards , Spurgeon Wesley and Finney . Laypersons are known to have come up with wrong conclusions about some of their writings . Scholars dig in and investigate and make their evaluations .
I follow the Scriptures . That is the source of my understanding of the Lord . However , the Holy Spirit has blessed many godly men of the past and present who unusually gifted in biblical exposition .Calvin was such a gifted individual that his Institutes in particular are singular in their blessedness to the cause of the Kingdom .

 

[johnp.]

Hello Allan.

If some people do not follow Calvin then why the huge uproar when quoting his own writting, except there are those who elevate him to an inerrant type status.

What uproar? I'm sure there are people who think that of Calvin but I know of none. I'm sure there are similar types both sides of the fence. We don't see Calvinists saying, "Wesley says this or that." Like I did with Wesley's hymn? Why is that? It isn't as if we are forever quoting Calvin in the posts unless the posts are about quoting Calvin or Calvinist writers.
I think it is more to do with misrepresenting him in a way that makes Calvin look more like Wesley than Wesley. It doesn't wash and if it did it doesn't matter.

But when a person makes an absolute statement concerning his (Calvins) beliefs and his own writting contradicts that absolute statement made, it should be addressed. But most Calvinists don't study or read Calvins work so how would they know what he actually stated by his own pen.

The way to address it is through scripture. If what is said doesn't accord with scripture then we should pay it no mind but where it does accord with scripture it should be taken as a teaching. If what is said later conflicts with previous statements made by him then that doesn't make what he said previously wrong.
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn.

As to how people behave, we are all maturing. If Calvin believed that Jesus Christ's atonement was for all men then I would say he is wrong because Eli's house had no atonement given to it. God swore on oath that no sacrifice would ever be given for Eli's house. To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn. Yet to think Calvin missed this is something to ponder. I bet he wore out more bibles than shoes. Why don't you believe it? Therefore, I swore to the house of Eli, `The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.' " 1 Sam 3:14.

Limited atonement is proved.

john.

 

[Allan]

The way to address it is through scripture. If what is said doesn't accord with scripture then we should pay it no mind but where it does accord with scripture it should be taken as a teaching. If what is said later conflicts with previous statements made by him then that doesn't make what he said previously wrong.
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn.

Oh come on John, lets us common sense here.
I didn't say he was misquoting scripture, for if that was the case then I agree. However, If I say I have never taught general Atonement but someone went back and reviewed my sermons or bible studies. You would not use stripture to show I erred in the statement that I never taught General Atonement. You would use my own works to show the inconsistancy.

As to how people behave, we are all maturing. If Calvin believed that Jesus Christ's atonement was for all men then I would say he is wrong because Eli's house had no atonement given to it. God swore on oath that no sacrifice would ever be given for Eli's house. To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn. Yet to think Calvin missed this is something to ponder. I bet he wore out more bibles than shoes. Why don't you believe it? Therefore, I swore to the house of Eli, `The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.' " 1 Sam 3:14.

Limited atonement is proved.

john.

Actaully they DID have atonement offered until the rebelled to the point of being cut off. They could have repented at ANY TIME, specifically when God spoke with Eli point blank about the sins of his sons which Eli KNEW they were activily involved in sin and defilement of the things of God. The FACT they could have repented, sought atonement, and pleaded for mercy but instead continued in their sinful and unglodly ways, God did just like He declares He will in NT in Rom 1:18-(24-(26-(32), 2 Thes 2:10-12, ) and is in complete harmony with the rest of Scripture. Due to their rejection of God truths and their continuing in unglody, wicked lifestyle God gave them over, and there is no sacrifice or atonement that can be applied to God judgment over it. They could have repented but chose not to and Eli chose not to deal appropriately with their sin but let them continue and was accounted in sin like they were. Much like Psalms 50:16-23. Atonement offered but rejected and God removes any hope of mercy through that atonement HENCEFORTH because of their rejection.

Limted Atonement DISPROVED.

 

[npetreley]

I think it is more to do with misrepresenting him in a way that makes Calvin look more like Wesley than Wesley. It doesn't wash and if it did it doesn't matter.

I think you nailed it there. It's the misrepresentation that irks some people, not the issue itself. I'm often irked by the fact that people continually misrepresent Arminianism as teaching that we are only injured, not dead, from the fall. Arminius believed in total depravity. I don't know who would call themselves an Arminian here, but if they do, they should know that they do not represent the views of Arminius. That's fine and dandy with me, since I don't represent all the views of Calvin. But when a fact is a fact on any side of the argument, acknowledge it and move on. Don't try to wiggle out of it or misrepresent it.

 

[npetreley]

Oh come on John, lets us common sense here.
I didn't say he was misquoting scripture, for if that was the case then I agree. However, If I say I have never taught general Atonement but someone went back and reviewed my sermons or bible studies. You would not use stripture to show I erred in the statement that I never taught General Atonement. You would use my own works to show the inconsistancy.


Actaully they DID have atonement offered until the rebelled to the point of being cut off. They could have repented at ANY TIME, specifically when God spoke with Eli point blank about the sins of his sons which Eli KNEW they were activily involved in sin and defilement of the things of God. The FACT they could have repented, sought atonement, and pleaded for mercy but instead continued in their sinful and unglodly ways, God did just like He declares He will in NT in Rom 1:18-(24-(26-(32), 2 Thes 2:10-12, ) and is in complete harmony with the rest of Scripture. Due to their rejection of God truths and their continuing in unglody, wicked lifestyle God gave them over, and there is no sacrifice or atonement that can be applied to God judgment over it. They could have repented but chose not to and Eli chose not to deal appropriately with their sin but let them continue and was accounted in sin like they were. Much like Psalms 50:16-23. Atonement offered but rejected and God removes any hope of mercy through that atonement HENCEFORTH because of their rejection.

Limted Atonement DISPROVED.

LOL!!! :laugh: :laugh:

Yet another case of "That's not the NORMAL character of God to do that, He only does it in special cases like when people reject Him."

(In case you don't know, "when people reject Him" is as in the human race, which means the exception is atonement, not the limitation of it.)

 

[Allan]

LOL!!! :laugh: :laugh:

Yet another case of "That's not the NORMAL character of God to do that, He only does it in special cases like when people reject Him."

(In case you don't know, "when people reject Him" is as in the human race, which means the exception is atonement, not the limitation of it.)

Hmm...

Show me where I stated " that God does this in only 'special cases'". But you are correct this IS the Charactor of God.

God is consistant and shows himself throughout scripture to be so. Eli was not born unable to be atoned for, and as a matter of fact UP TILL THAT MOMENT he consistantly Was - specifically regarding the yearly atonement for the sins of ALL of Israel.

Have you not read:

1Sa 2:28 And did I choose him out of all the tribes of Israel [to be] my priest, to offer upon mine altar, to burn incense, to wear an ephod before me? and did I give unto the house of thy father all the offerings made by fire of the children of Israel?

It sounds like the house of Eli, which comes from the house of Levi, was under a particular blessing and ministry as priests of God.

1Sa 2:29 Wherefore kick ye at my sacrifice and at mine offering, which I have commanded [in my] habitation; and honourest thy sons above me, to make yourselves fat with the chiefest of all the offerings of Israel my people?

In light of the previous verse, here those sacrifices (atonement) and offerings which are offered up (even for him) he "kicks" at or oposes/rejects. He obviously is NOT rebelling by NOT doing sacrifices and offering so the implication is explict toward the sacrifices and offerings made and even for himself which are to be made in Gods dwelling as God commanded them to be. And not only that but Eli exhalts his sons above God and righteousness.
Wait a minute - let me look again. -- Yep, that is what the scripture says.

1Sa 2:30 Wherefore the LORD God of Israel saith, I said indeed [that] thy house, and the house of thy father, should walk before me for ever: but now the LORD saith, Be it far from me; for them that honour me I will honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed.
1Sa 2:31 Behold, the days come, that I will cut off thine arm, and the arm of thy father's house, that there shall not be an old man in thine house.

NOW you see the Lord states Eli is can not be atoned for (any longer) BECAUSE Eli did not honor God (obey him) thereby Rejected God. If you go back the what I said earlier about Rom 1 and 2 Thes - you see this EXACT thing. Having the truth and knowing God, yet rejecting - God THEN gives them over because they reject the truth that COULD HAVE SAVED THEM.