John Calvin on John 1:29

That is what Calvinism teaches ... that all men without exception are in need of reconciliation to God.

 

No, it doesn't require that.

 

What's the contradiction? You asked if something was true. I said it was. The fact that someone needs something does not mean that someone else is obligated to provide it. All men need reconciliation. God would be perfectly just to have provided an atonement for none of them whatsoever. Need does not require a provision.

If you question is "Did Jesus die for all men without exception" that is a different question. That is not the question you asked, nor is it the question I answered.

 

Several issues about words. But first, no reconciliation can occur apart from the death of Christ. Apart from Christ's death, God can respond to sin only in immediate judgment. The fact that men do not immediately die from sin is proof that even the non-elect benefit from teh atonement.

On to words, the question you asked was not about God's desire for reconciliation. Therefore, I didn't answer that question. These words mean things and that is why I answered as I did. Even at that, God's desire does not also obligate him. Consider your own position: God desires the salvation of all men without exception. But yet he does not actually save them. For you, his desire does not obligate him to save them, it only obligates him to provide salvation. I would point out that you have not solved the problem, but only moved it back a step.

Remember, need does not obligate; desire does not obligate.

 

He could have. That's not the point. My point is that his desire to do something does not obligate him to do something.

The fact that he desired to save them does not obligate him to save them. You agree, as you said above.

In the same way, the fact that all men need reconciliation does not obligate God to provide atonement for reonciliation.

 

It seems to me that what this board really needs to study is this passage of Scripture.

That is, it is not the children of natural descent who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as descendants.

For this is the language of promise: "At this time I will return, and Sarah will have a son."
Not only that, but Rebecca became pregnant by our ancestor Isaac.

Yet before their children had been born or had done anything good or bad (so that God's plan of election might continue to operate
according to his calling and not by works), Rebecca was told, "The older child will serve the younger one."
As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

What can we say, then? God is not unrighteous, is he? Of course not!
For he says to Moses, "I will be merciful to the person I want to be merciful to, and I will be kind to the person I want to be kind to."
Therefore, God's choice does not depend on a person's will or effort, but on God himself, who shows mercy.

For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "I have raised you up for this very purpose, to demonstrate my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."
Therefore, God has mercy on whomever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomever he chooses.
You may ask me, "Then why does God still find fault with anybody? For who can resist his will?"
On the contrary, who are you-mere man that you are-to talk back to God? Can an object that was molded say to the one who molded it, "Why did you make me like this?"

A potter has the right to do what he wants to with his clay, doesn't he? He can make something for a special occasion or something for ordinary use from the same lump.

Now if God wants to demonstrate his wrath and reveal his power, can't he be extremely patient with the objects of his wrath that are made for destruction?

Can't he also reveal his glorious riches to the objects of his mercy that he has prepared ahead of time for glory-
including us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but from the gentiles as well?
As he says in Hosea, "Those who are not my people I will call my people, and the one who was not loved I will call my loved one.

In the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' they will be called children of the living God."

David

 

YOu didn't get it right. But that wasn't the question you asked. Decide what you want to talk about. You asked if all men needed reconciliation. The answer to that is Yes. It is a non sequitur to say that because all men need reonciliation that God therefore provided it. That may or may not be true ... But that was not the question.

God's command to repent and believe is not empty, but neither was it the topic you brought up.

 

Why would it be a bluff? There is a means by which everyone who repents and believes will be saved, and that means is the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ.

That the atonement is definite or particular does not mean that there is no means by which any man could be saved if he repented. Definite atonement says that the atonement is not MERELY a means--not that the means itself doesn't exist.

 

I read your OP several times, and I directly answered. Yes, all men without exception need to be reconciled to God.

You are taking an additional step that was not in your first post, and is not in the part of Calvin you cited. I am not playing games. Read what you asked, and then follow it from there.

It is theological error to say that because all men need reconciliation, therefore, God must have provided it. That is a wrong construction. I believe God did provide a means of reconciliation for all men. Most Calvinists believe that. But it has nothing to do with obligation that stems from need. God would be perfectly just to do nothing about man's need for reconciliation.

You are getting hung up on what God did vs. what God was required or obligated to do. The two are not the same.

 

Lots of needs go unmet. Why not this one?

 

Huh? Are you saying that God is OBLIGATED to meet whatever need any human being has? That if a need is there, God MUST meet it?