John Calvin on Mark 14:24

Remarkably, you would know the answer to this if you have been listening. We have constantly said that "Calvinists" are not followers of Calvin, just as arminians are not followers of Arminus. The names are names for doctrines.

Calvinism is a name for what people believe about salvation, not what they believe about John Calvin. Arminianism is a name for what people believe about salvation, not what they believe about Arminius?

 

No, I don't think Calvin was wrong, nor am I sure that you characterized it properly.

But you repeat the same nonsense I already corrected in teh previous post. Why didn't you read what I said? You said that Calvinists are misrepresenting Calvin's views. If you read above, I told you that Calvinism is not about what Calvin believed but rather about what people believe the Bible teaches about salvation. Please get that through your head, and move forward. If you want to discuss what exactly Calvin believed about the atonement, that would be more than fine.

 

NOthing to worry about. I understand simple sense just fine.

Third time in three posts you have made this error. Calvinism is a term for what people believe about salvation. IT existed long before Calvin. His name got attached to it, but Calvinis is not specifically what Calvin taught. It is a name that describes the set of beliefs that people have about salvation. This is why I say Get it through your head. If it were there, as you claim, then you would not be confusing this.

It is pretended to be what you claim, then it might be, though it would be irrelevant.

I would hope a kid would at least learn to use the terms properly.

Yes, I get your point, and you are wrong. To call yourself a Calvinist is not like calling yourself a Christian. A Christian is a follower of Christ. A Calvinist is someone who believes certain things about what Christ taught.

This is really a silly discussion. It just doesn't matter.

No, I wouldn't. But to be honest, I don't know enough to talk about it. You don't either, I assume.

Roger Nicole, in Westminster Theological Journal fall of 85, has an article on John Calvin's View of the Extent of the Atonement. His conclusion is that "Our conclusion, on balance, is that definite atonement fits better than universal grace into the total pattern of Calvin’s teaching." Nicole is a good researcher and author, and his opinions carry weight.

But the reality is that it doesn't matter, IMO. Perhaps you can tell us why it matters what Calvin beleived? Our discussion here is about what the Bible teaches, not what somebody here or there believed.

 

The atonement is universal but Calvin goes on to say that for each individual to accept the truth that his own sins have been expiated.

That, Larry, is "individual application" of the atonement to one's self, not, as you seem to think a "class application" for the elect! Which by the way is where your belief system is in error.

 

This is absolutely surreal. What is up with you? You have now been told three times (this is the fourth I believe) that "Calvinist" describes what someone believes about salvation, not someone's relationship to John Calvin and his beliefs. Why is that hard for you to grasp? Is this really the best argument you can put forth? It is much weaker than your already weak arguments.

If you read Nicole's article, you will see that it isn't evident what Calvin taught. I bet you didn't read that you did you ...

If people like yourself didn't use the term Christian to refer to something I don't believe, I would gladly use it. Calvinist is just another name for Christian, but because some have twisted Christianity to mean something else, we have to define ourselves a little more closely.

[ April 25, 2005, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

This is absolutely surreal. What is up with you? You have now been told three times (this is the fourth I believe) that "Calvinist" describes what someone believes about salvation, not someone's relationship to John Calvin and his beliefs. Why is that hard for you to grasp? Is this really the best argument you can put forth? It is much weaker than your already weak arguments.

PL, what are you talking about? Calvinism is a doctrine founded on the teaching of John Calvin, hence the name 'calvinism'. Arminianism is founded on his teachings, hence the phrase 'arminianism'.

calvinist is NOT another name for 'Christian', as Christian is the following of Christ, not Calvin. I find it kind of funny that you even twist what calvinism is and what you want it to be.

 

Where is the world did you come up with the idea about a "class application"? I don't know of anyone who believes that. The atonement is applied to individuals who believe.

It is no wonder you guys are so messed up. You keep making up stuff that no one believes. Don't you get tired of that?

 

No it's not. Calvinism predated Calvin by a long time. Read some history on this.

This argument has been specifically answered numerous times. Calvinists are followers of Christ, not of Calvin. To be a Calvinist is to hold a certain position on the doctrine of salvation. The same is true for arminians. They are not followers of Arminius. They hold a particular position on salvation.

I have never done that.

 

I don't need to. But that name has been given historically to people who believe what I believe.

That is not the idea. The "Doctrines of Grace" is a name that means something very specific. It doesn't mean that no one else teaches grace. You see, these names mean things historically.

Actually, very few people quote Calvin today. There has been much work done on this topic. Furthermore, I don't know of anyone who dismisses him when he says that Christ died for the human race. Most calvinists believe that.

No, it's not.

I referred you to an article that shows Calvin probably did teach a particular atonement. Did you read it yet? Furthermore, it is irrelevant to see what Calvin taught. What is important is what the Bible teaches. We go by that.

I haven't seen anyone attack you. I simply pointed out flaws in your method.

We are ... Saved by grace just like the arminians who disagree with us.

Ironic you should choose "T" ... But again, that is not what Paul was talking about.

 

Thanks for the chuckle. I have never appealed to Calvin's teachings to support my belief in the Doctrines of Grace. Never. Most Calvinists don't. We didn't choose the name "Calvinism", and most of us would prefer a different name, but our opponents would twist and misrepresent whatever other name we came up with. That's OK, though - Jesus said it would be this way. But not forever.

 

Ok - so that makes us Calvinist-Arminians??

 

How many times will you repeat that nonsense Icthus? I have given you a resource to begin your study that there is evidence that Calvin did hold to a particular redemption. I have furthermore shown that it is irrelevant since Calvinism is not about following Calvin but rather a label for a position on what the Bible teaches about salvation.

This is what makes conversation with you so difficult. You assert something; some one tells you and then demonstrates that you are misinformed, or incorrect; then you continue just like you were never told. That is not a good way to debate. Be always learning. When someone corrects an opinion you have, be quick to change it, or at least to admit there is another side.

 

BTW, I notice you are not giving citations for these quotes of Calvin. Why not? You scared to have someone check them to see what they actually say? It is customary to provide a reference when you give a citation. Please do so.