John Calvin on Mark 14:24

Post a link ... and don't call me a yank ... I am a southerner ... ... I just live here ...

 

Don't be so sure you know exactly what Calvin thought about the atonement. He didn't write much about it, so there has always been a little disagreement about exactly what his view was as to it's extent, because he really didn't address it specifically. All there are are a handful of quotes that may or may not address the issue.

But, as Larry says, it's neither here nor there. Most Calvinists don't really care because their view is based on scripture, not on what Calvin wrote, taught or thought.

What Calvinist uses John Calvin's works to support their Calvinistic viewpoint? "Calvinism" is simply a name that has been given to a certain soteriological viewpoint, and if you hold to that viewpoint, then historically you've been given the label "Calvinist". For most of those labeled "Calvinist", it has almost nothing to do with the man John Calvin.

If you think it's dishonest, then blame whoever it was back in church history that started calling those with this particular soteriological viewpoint "Calvinist." The word has an accepted definition now through hundreds of years of usage, and those who go along with an accepted historical definition are hardly being dishonest. They are just accepting the label as it is commonly used. That's the way language works.

Now that I've got that off my chest, put this in your "Calvin accepted univeral atonement" pipe and smoke it:

Calvin's commentary on 1 John 2:2:

 

What Calvin allowed to be true, but not suitable as an explanation for this passage is the idea that "Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect", which is BTW, a classic explanation of limited atonement.

And he IS saying that this passage does not include the reprobate in the "all" or "whole" that were propitiated in Christ. Rather, it is a "benefit common to the whole Church." Another classic explanation of limited atonement.

If Calvin doesn't think that "all" or "whole world" included the reprobate in this case, then I suspect he doen't think the reprobate are included in what you think are universal atonement statements from Calvin elsewhere.

 

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. </font>[/QUOTE]Feelin' persecuted are ya?

Don't feel too bad, we all get our share, mostly from those who adhere to Calvinism.

 

Russell's quote of Calvin is exactly what I previously said. 1 John 2:2 does not teach universal atonement. There is no confusion there, except by people who don't read and learn from what is being said.

 

If I read someone and thought they were taking both sides of an argument, my first thought would be that perhaps I didn't understand the argument or didn't understand what the person was saying.