John Calvin on John 3:16-17

Jarthur001 · May 14, 2007

This is what has been posted by some non_calvinist

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
Click to expand...

Please note the words from Calvin....

Now please look at the words as found in Calvins book on John...(english)

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, (?????????) 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.
Click to expand...

Now I must ask. Is there anything in the quote from John that would lead others to think John Calvin was not a Calvinist?

And..

After you read the full statement by John Calvin, would you say John Calvin was a Calvinist, or a free-willer?

Jarthur001 · May 14, 2007

This time I would like to highlight a few words that others seem unwilling to post.

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, (?????????) 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.
Click to expand...

Allan · May 14, 2007

Jarthur001 said:

This is what has been posted by some non_calvinist

Please note the words from Calvin....

Now please look at the words as found in Calvins book on John...(english)

Now I must ask. Is there anything in the quote from John that would lead others to think John Calvin was not a Calvinist?

And..

After you read the full statement by John Calvin, would you say John Calvin was a Calvinist, or a free-willer?
Click to expand...

Actually this is directly in line with what you are bring up and spoken of here beforehttp://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=994568&postcount=44 concerning our discussion of Calvin and Unlimited Atonement.

But again I never stated Calvin was not a Calvinist. He just leaned more toward unlimited atonement but particular or limited Redeption.

Allan · May 14, 2007

Jarthur001 said:

This time I would like to highlight a few words that others seem unwilling to post.
Click to expand...

You still don't deal with the fact Calvin speaks of Christs death for all mankind and that salvation is offered to all mankind in plain and simple wording.

He maintains here that world means the wicked sinful mankind throughout his rendering here.

Rippon · May 14, 2007

Allan keeps getting confused . Calvin and Calvinists believe in the free declaration of the gospel . But the external , indiscriminate call does not = universal provision . The Lord did not die for , on behalf of , in the place of , in the stead and room of reprobates . He died FOR His own -- the elect , his sheep , the church , the saints , ( and many more scriptural designations for one and the same group ) alone .

John Calvin said the following in his treatise on the Lord's Supper :

I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ which was not crucified for them , and how they can drink the blood which was not shed to expiate their sins . ( from True Partaking Of The Flesh And Blood Of Christ )

In his Commentary on 1 John 2:2 :

... the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole church . Then under the word all or whole , he does not include the reprobate , but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world .

In his Commentary on 1 Timothy 2:4 :

... the Apostle simply means , that there is no people and no rank in the world that is excluded from salvation ; because God wishes that the gospel should be proclaimed to all without exception .

Brother Bob · May 14, 2007

I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ which was not crucified for them , and how they can drink the blood which was not shed to expiate their sins . ( from True Partaking Of The Flesh And Blood Of Christ )

In his Commentary on 1 John 2:2 :

... the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole church . Then under the word all or whole , he does not include the reprobate , but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world .

In his Commentary on 1 Timothy 2:4 :

... the Apostle simply means , that there is no people and no rank in the world that is excluded from salvation ; because God wishes that the gospel should be proclaimed to all without exception .
Click to expand...

I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ which was not crucified for them, of which we all were at one time.

I come to call sinners to repentance.

It seems to be that this is double talk. Either some are excluded from salvation, or they are not. If no one is excluded, then He died for the sin of the whole world.

I wish calvinist would stop saying, that He only died for the elect a pre-chosen group, and at the end try to clean it up by saying God gave all a chance for salvation.

Rippon · May 14, 2007

BB , the free and unfettered proclamation of the Gospel is not at odds with the biblical fact of Christ dying for His own . Calvinists and any biblically-minded people do not belive that God offers chances for salvation . He's not running a lottery .

Brother Bob · May 14, 2007

Ecc 9:11I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race [is] not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

1 Timothy 2:3-6 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

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 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

1 John 5:1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

Rippon · May 14, 2007

The effectual call is for certain sinners . The general call is for all within hearing distance .

Brother Bob · May 14, 2007

What is the "general call"?

How can one preach to a group of sinners, and say, God loves you enough, that He gave His son that you might have eternal life, and really believe it yourself?

It seems to me, if one is preaching to a group of sinners repentance, while knowing the majority can't repent, is just not giving the complete truth.

I mean no disrespect at all, its just how I feel about it.

examiningcalvinism · May 14, 2007

Who said Calvin was not a Calvinist?

John Calvin was indeed a Calvinist of the Supralapsarian variety: “At this point in particular the flesh rages when it hears that the predestination to death of those who perish is referred to the will of God.” (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: Romans and Thessalonians, p.208, emphasis mine)

As has been maintained, John Calvin was a 4-Point Supralapsarian who prescribed to Unlimited Atonement but also Double Predestination (quite differently than how Sproul believes in Double Predestination, but that's another matter).
http://www.the-highway.com/DoublePredestination_Sproul.html

The purpose of the Arminian in quoting John Calvin is simply to obtain exegetical support for the passage in which he is being quoted.

Both Calvin and Luther were 4-Pointers who believed that Elective Grace precipitated Regenerative Grace which results in Persevering Grace. They were Calvinists, but not 5-Pointers. Ron Rhodes is a 4-Pointer, and does a good job in handling the 4-Point view.

http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Atonement.html
http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/RollCall/Rhodes.html

Allan · May 14, 2007

Rippon said:

Allan keeps getting confused . Calvin and Calvinists believe in the free declaration of the gospel . But the external , indiscriminate call does not = universal provision . The Lord did not die for , on behalf of , in the place of , in the stead and room of reprobates . He died FOR His own -- the elect , his sheep , the church , the saints , ( and many more scriptural designations for one and the same group ) alone .

John Calvin said the following in his treatise on the Lord's Supper :

I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ which was not crucified for them , and how they can drink the blood which was not shed to expiate their sins . ( from True Partaking Of The Flesh And Blood Of Christ )

In his Commentary on 1 John 2:2 :

... the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole church . Then under the word all or whole , he does not include the reprobate , but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world .

In his Commentary on 1 Timothy 2:4 :

... the Apostle simply means , that there is no people and no rank in the world that is excluded from salvation ; because God wishes that the gospel should be proclaimed to all without exception .
Click to expand...

Rippon, it is you who are confused with what I am saying, so listen please.

I'm NOT talking about your two calls, nor have ever been.

I am speaking directly to the point that Calvin, Luther, and many other Reformers held to the view that Jesus died for ALL MEN but the redeeming affects of the Atonement are imputed only upon those to whom it has been applied through faith.

Thus it SOUNDS (to some) like they contradict themselves, when in fact they don't. They speak to His death being made for all mankind, but they speak more specifically and ofter concerning those to whom it was to be applied through the foreknowledge of God. These are not contradictory but set forth in scripture.

When THEY speak of limited Atonement it is in regard to it complete work of being offered up AND it's application. In that sense the Atonement IS limited to only those it is (or can be by the foreknowledge of God) applied to. You can even apply that same to the OT Atonement which is command to be given for all of Israel even though all of Israel did not follow nor believe in or only in the Lord God. It was made for all but applied only to those who believe by faith. The atonement was set forth to ALL Israelites because of Gods grace in yielding an Atonement toward them all but it's redeptive power is only applied when it is recieved by faith. The Same with the Atonement of Christ. It is the same Atonement becuase it had to fullfill the Laws requirement of not ONLY being applied to those who recieve it in faith but ALSO being offered up for ALL.

They held this understanding of the Atonements offering AND application as one view, where the Non-Cal simply distinguishes the offering and the application.

Thus His death for all doesn't save the whole world but saves only those who will believe, and therefore His death which is made for all is the ultimate condemnation against the World for its unbelief.

AresMan · May 14, 2007

Brother Bob said:

It seems to me, if one is preaching to a group of sinners repentance, while knowing the majority can't repent, is just not giving the complete truth.
Click to expand...

How does anyone know this? Has anyone here claimed to know who can't repent?

Brother Bob · May 14, 2007

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brother Bob
It seems to me, if one is preaching to a group of sinners repentance, while knowing the majority can't repent, is just not giving the complete truth.

How does anyone know this? Has anyone here claimed to know who can't repent?
Click to expand...

No, that is not what I said. I said if you preach repentance to "all", and yet you say "all" can't repent. How can you reconcile that? It is Calvinist who say "all" can't repent.

DQuixote · May 14, 2007

Cal was doing pretty good, on again, off again, until this:

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.
Click to expand...

At the risk of losing favor with the Calvinists, based upon the OP and subsequent "debate", I'd say Cal just couldn't get a handle on it.

:laugh:

Rippon · May 15, 2007

Calvin On Isaiah 8:16

Through Isaiah , He still more openly shows how he directs the promises of salvation specifically to the elect : for he proclaims that they alone , not the whole human race without distinction , are to become His disciples .

Jarthur001 · May 15, 2007

DQuixote said:

Cal was doing pretty good, on again, off again, until this:

At the risk of losing favor with the Calvinists, based upon the OP and subsequent "debate", I'd say Cal just couldn't get a handle on it.

:laugh:
Click to expand...

Setting aside who is right and who is in error, in this long standing debate.....

Why would you say this?

Not that you agree, but do you understand Calvinism? This would be a great support statement for Calvinism and not harm it.

OR....

If he did not back this up with verses from Gods Word, then I can understand your statement as well.

However as you will find, this is backed by the Bible. Again, not that you agree.

DQuixote · May 15, 2007

In essence, Cal said, in the portions reproduced in this thread, "I love all the colors of the rainbow precisely the same; blue is my favorite." That means that those who pronounce themselves Calvinist have to choose what Cal wrote, assemble that information, come to Cal's conclusion, then go to the Bible to pick and choose scriptures which support all the colors equally, especially blue.

I think Cal himself, reading that, would say "Yes." :laugh:

Jarthur001 · May 15, 2007

DQuixote said:

In essence, Cal said, in the portions reproduced in this thread, "I love all the colors of the rainbow precisely the same; blue is my favorite." That means that those who pronounce themselves Calvinist have to choose what Cal wrote, assemble that information, come to Cal's conclusion, then go to the Bible to pick and choose scriptures which support all the colors equally, especially blue.

I think Cal himself, reading that, would say "Yes." :laugh:
Click to expand...

In essence..you are wrong...and as though before, you do not understand calvinism.

To a Calvinist, John Calvin most be held to the same standard as all writers. That standard is the Bible. I am a Calvinist, not because I pronounced myself a Calvinist, but rather because others called me this. I take hold of the lable after I found out what they were talking about. I do not believe because John Calvin wrote a book and therefore I must follow John. For you to say such things proves you do not understand Calvinist.

It was Chrsit that died for me, not john. It was God that choose me, not john. God wrote the Book, and it is the Book which is my standard. If Calvin leaves the truths found in Gods Word, it is Calvin that must go, and not the Bible.

I feel John backs his words with the Bible....verse after verse after verse. I would like to see you back your claims made above with verses from the Bible.

What do you disagree with...and why...based on Gods Word. If you not I will draw the conclusion you have none.

John Calvin on John 3:16-17

Jarthur001 Active Member

Jarthur001 Active Member

Allan Active Member

Allan Active Member

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Brother Bob New Member

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Brother Bob New Member

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Brother Bob New Member

examiningcalvinism New Member

Allan Active Member

AresMan Active Member
Site Supporter

Brother Bob New Member

DQuixote New Member

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Jarthur001 Active Member

DQuixote New Member

Jarthur001 Active Member

Useful Searches

John Calvin on John 3:16-17

Jarthur001 Active Member

Jarthur001 Active Member

Allan Active Member

Allan Active Member

Rippon Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Brother Bob New Member

Rippon Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Brother Bob New Member

Rippon Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Brother Bob New Member

examiningcalvinism New Member

Allan Active Member

AresMan Active Member Site Supporter

Brother Bob New Member

DQuixote New Member

Rippon Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Jarthur001 Active Member

DQuixote New Member

Jarthur001 Active Member

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

AresMan Active Member
Site Supporter

Rippon Well-Known Member
Site Supporter