John Calvin on The Extent of Jesus' Death

[AustinC]

Austin, it seems you know you are making a false accusation.



No, Calvinism does when it states that God foreknows the future only by predetermining it.

You wrote:

If God foreknew Adam's fall, then he causally predestinated Adam's fall.

I asked a question regarding whether you reject God's foreknowledge, since, according to you, "If God foreknew, God caused..."

The false accusation about Calvinism comes from your ignorance of Calvinism.

 

[Reformed1689]

Calvinism, and the so-called "Five Points of Calvinism", are supposed to be from John Calvin, otherwise these terms are wrongly used.

Here are some comments by John Calvin, from his own commentaries, on the extent of the Death of the Lord Jesus Christ, which clearly shows that Jesus did not die for the "elect" only, as some who use the term "Calvinist", would argue.

Mark 14:24

“Which is shed for many. By the word many he means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race”

John 1:29

“Who taketh away the sin of the world. He uses the word sin in the singular number, for any kind of iniquity; as if he had said, that every kind of unrighteousness which alienates men from God is taken away by Christ. And when he says, the sin Of The World, he extends this favor indiscriminately to the whole human race; that the Jews might not think that he had been sent to them alone. But hence we infer that the whole world is involved in the same condemnation; and that as all men without exception are guilty of unrighteousness before God, they need to be reconciled to him. John the Baptist, therefore, by speaking generally of the sin of the world, intended to impress upon us the conviction of our own misery, and to exhort us to seek the remedy. Now our duty is, to embrace the benefit which is offered to all, that each of us may be convinced that there is nothing to hinder him from obtaining reconciliation in Christ, provided that he comes to him by the guidance of faith.”

John 3:16

“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”

Romans 5:18

“He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him”

Colossians 1:14

" For, unquestionably, when God remits our transgressions, he exempts us from condemnation to eternal death. This is our liberty, this our glorying in the face of death — that our sins are not imputed to us. He says that this redemption was procured through the blood of Christ, for by the sacrifice of his death all the sins of the world have been expiated"

Conclusive evidence from the writings of John Calvin, that he did NOT believe in the heresy known as "Limited Atonement", or "Particular Redemption", etc. In fact, Calvin's comment on Mark, is connected with the Lord's Supper, where Judas was present, and did himself take the bread and wine, which represents the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ!

I don't even need to read this post to know that you took these comments out of their fuller context. Happens all the time when people try to use Calvin to rip reformed theology. Unfortunately, reformed theology doesn't come from Calvin. It comes from Scripture. But Calvin did believe in limited atonement.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

There is no such thing as "hyper-Calvinism". What men call "hyper Calvinism" is simply "consistent Calvinism".
Their problem is that their tender conscience will not allow them to stare it in the face as the logical terminus of Calvinism.
To restrict Theistic Determinism to soteriology alone is inconsistent.
In Calvinism, by as much as God is the cause of redemption, so must he also be the cause of sin.
Anything else is unbalanced.
Remember, in your system, foreknowledge = predestination.
If God foreknew Adam's fall, then he causally predestinated Adam's fall.
What you call "hypers" are simply more "honest" (albeit with a seared conscience).
They don't shy away from the logic of their system when it comes to the fall.

I'm not sure if you posted this out of ignorance or whether you were just being snotty, but I will assume the former.
Hyper-Calvinism is the belief that the Gospel is not to be preached to all, but only to 'sensible sinners.' people bring other aspects in as Hyper, like 'Justification from eternity,' but to me that is 'High' Calvinism rather than Hyper.
The 17th Century particular Baptists like Spilsbury. Kiffin, Knollys, Keach and Bunyan all believed, like Calvin, in the free proclamation of the Gospel. The 1646 Baptist Confession (Art. XXV) declares, The preaching of the Gospel to the conversion of sinners is absolutely free; in no way requiring as absolutely necessary, and qualifications, preparations or terrors of the law, but only and alone the naked soul, a sinner and ungodly, to receive Christ.
But in the 1690s and into the 1700s, a number of Baptist preachers embrased Hyper-calvinism. Andrew Fuller wrote of his first minister, John Eve that he was, "tinged with false Calvinism [and so] had little or nothing to say to the unconverted." It was Fuller who brought Baptists back to the earlier orthodox teaching, not that most Baptist preachers had abandoned it. Benjamin Beddome, for example, was an 18th Century preacher whose ministry was hugely blessed in the salvation of sinners.

 

[TurtleSox]

John Calvin's heresy that Christ suffered eternal death and the pains of hell.

Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion Book II, Chapter 16,
Section 10
But, apart from the Creed, we must seek for a surer exposition of Christ’s descent to hell: and the word of God furnishes us with one not only pious and holy, but replete with excellent consolation. Nothing had been done if Christ had only endured corporeal death. In order to interpose between us and God’s anger, and satisfy his righteous judgment, it was necessary that he should feel the weight of divine vengeance. Whence also it was necessary that he should engage, as it were, at close quarters with the powers of hell and the horrors of eternal death. We lately quoted from the Prophet, that the “chastisement of our peace was laid upon him” that he “was bruised for our iniquities” that he “bore our infirmities;” expressions which intimate, that, like a sponsor and surety for the guilty, and, as it were, subjected to condemnation, he undertook and paid all the penalties which must have been exacted from them, the only exception being, that the pains of death could not hold him. Hence there is nothing strange in its being said that he descended to hell, seeing he endured the death which is inflicted on the wicked by an angry God. It is frivolous and ridiculous to object that in this way the order is perverted, it being absurd that an event which preceded burial should be placed after it. But after explaining what Christ endured in the sight of man, the Creed appropriately adds the invisible and incomprehensible judgment which he endured before God, to teach us that not only was the body of Christ given up as the price of redemption, but that there was a greater and more excellent price—that he bore in his soul the tortures of condemned and ruined man.

 

[Van]

Exactly what falsehood should people behold?

Here are the falsehoods!!
Jesus atonement paid for those who believe and no one else

The payment via atonement is only for those who believe and no others.

The payment was never made for those who don't believe.

When you say "yes" you proclaim universalism and effective salvation for all. .

Behold the falsehoods used to defend the false doctrines of Calvinism!!

And here is the biblical proof the above Calvinist claims are false!!

2Peter 2:1 "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves." Thus non-believers were bought by Jesus. And being bought does not result by itself salvation as some are still headed for swift destruction. Christ's death purchased the means of salvation for humanity, but only those God places into Christ are saved.

 

[AustinC]

Here are the falsehoods!!
Jesus atonement paid for those who believe and no one else

The payment via atonement is only for those who believe and no others.

The payment was never made for those who don't believe.

When you say "yes" you proclaim universalism and effective salvation for all. .

Behold the falsehoods used to defend the false doctrines of Calvinism!!

And here is the biblical proof the above Calvinist claims are false!!

2Peter 2:1 "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves." Thus non-believers were bought by Jesus. And being bought does not result by itself salvation as some are still headed for swift destruction. Christ's death purchased the means of salvation for humanity, but only those God places into Christ are saved.

How are they wrong?

When I go out and pay for the entire meal for all persons, those person's don't owe anything. The debt owed to the restaurant is paid by me.

If Jesus paid for the sins of the entire world, what would the entire world still owe God before God would not recognize their debt?

When I pay for the meal, those for whom I pay do not have to accept that I paid for them in order for them to walk out of the restaurant. Regardless of their acceptance, their debt is paid

Why would a human have to accept God has paid the debt to be saved when, by your claim, all humans have had their debt paid in full. What could possibly keep them from walking in to heaven? Their debt, by your claim, has been paid.

You claim Jesus only paid the "means" of salvation, as if it's only a partial payment.

Then you claim, "only those God places into Christ are saved," which is particular atonement, not unlimited atonement.

Do you see your confusion or is it just a giant blind spot in your thinking?

 

[Van]

How are they wrong?
SNIP

On and on the Calvinists post absurdity to hide truth!

And they include material false statements such as I claim Jesus only paid to provide the means of salvation.

However every person saved is saved by means of Christ's sacrifice on the cross.

This is all they post, absurdity and falsehood...

 

[George Antonios]

I'm not sure if you posted this out of ignorance or whether you were just being snotty, but I will assume the former.
Hyper-Calvinism is the belief that the Gospel is not to be preached to all, but only to 'sensible sinners.' people bring other aspects in as Hyper, like 'Justification from eternity,' but to me that is 'High' Calvinism rather than Hyper.
The 17th Century particular Baptists like Spilsbury. Kiffin, Knollys, Keach and Bunyan all believed, like Calvin, in the free proclamation of the Gospel. The 1646 Baptist Confession (Art. XXV) declares, The preaching of the Gospel to the conversion of sinners is absolutely free; in no way requiring as absolutely necessary, and qualifications, preparations or terrors of the law, but only and alone the naked soul, a sinner and ungodly, to receive Christ.
But in the 1690s and into the 1700s, a number of Baptist preachers embrased Hyper-calvinism. Andrew Fuller wrote of his first minister, John Eve that he was, "tinged with false Calvinism [and so] had little or nothing to say to the unconverted." It was Fuller who brought Baptists back to the earlier orthodox teaching, not that most Baptist preachers had abandoned it. Benjamin Beddome, for example, was an 18th Century preacher whose ministry was hugely blessed in the salvation of sinners.

Irrelevant distinctions in context. The point was that hyper-Calvinism is the only possible extension of Calvinism and is thus the only true Calvinism.

 

[AustinC]

On and on the Calvinists post absurdity to hide truth!

And they include material false statements such as I claim Jesus only paid to provide the means of salvation.

However every person saved is saved by means of Christ's sacrifice on the cross.

This is all they post, absurdity and falsehood...

Irrelevant distinctions in context. The point was that hyper-Calvinism is the only possible extension of Calvinism and is thus the only true Calvinism.

And thus you both box yourselves in so that you refuse to accept what the Bible tells us. Like the Pharisees you create conclusions that secure your error.

 

[Van]

And thus you both box yourselves in so that you refuse to accept what the Bible tells us. Like the Pharisees you create conclusions that secure your error.

Yet another non-specific claim (refuse to accept what the Bible tells us) which is like claiming the opponent is wrong without evidence.

This is all the Calvinists offer which shows their objective is to avoid discussion of biblical truth as presented in this thread. John Calvin taught that the view of Limited Atonement was unbiblical.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Irrelevant distinctions in context. The point was that hyper-Calvinism is the only possible extension of Calvinism and is thus the only true Calvinism.

It is as I said then: ignorance or snottiness (if that is a word).

 

[Yeshua1]

I read the book you seem not to comprehend. The B I B L E

So you refuse to read what we Calvinists have in some of our main texts, and yet will be lecturing us to why we are all wrong?

 

[Van]

So you refuse to read what we Calvinists have in some of our main texts, and yet will be lecturing us to why we are all wrong?

Yet another Calvinist disparaging opponents with falsehood while steadfastly avoiding the topic. Same ol, same ol...
Did he address that John Calvin disagreed with the so called "Calvinist" doctrine of Limited Atonement? Nope... Go figure

 

[Yeshua1]

Yet another Calvinist disparaging opponents with falsehood while steadfastly avoiding the topic. Same ol, same ol...
Did he address that John Calvin disagreed with the so called "Calvinist" doctrine of Limited Atonement? Nope... Go figure

You claim to be able to lecture us on what we believe, by NOT reading any of our Systematic theologies?

 

[Van]

You claim to be able to lecture us on what we believe, by NOT reading any of our Systematic theologies?

Material false statements from Y1 are non-stop. Did he address the topic? Nope so diversions by means of absurdity and falsehood once again.

Did ordinary Calvinists on this board have claim that "the many" did not apply to everybody but the one. Note this specific problem in understanding was not addressed.

And ordinary Calvinists on this board have claimed "the world" in John 1:29 and John 3:16 did not refer to the whole human race, but just the elect. Note this specific problem in understanding was not addressed.

And ordinary Calvinists on this board have claimed Romans 5:18 does not say justification to life is "available" to all humanity. Note this specific problem in understanding was not addressed.

Calvinism's Limited Atonement is a denial that God loves humanity, and that Christ died as a ransom for all.

 

[Yeshua1]

Material false statements from Y1 are non-stop. Did he address the topic? Nope so diversions by means of absurdity and falsehood once again.

Did ordinary Calvinists on this board have claim that "the many" did not apply to everybody but the one. Note this specific problem in understanding was not addressed.

And ordinary Calvinists on this board have claimed "the world" in John 1:29 and John 3:16 did not refer to the whole human race, but just the elect. Note this specific problem in understanding was not addressed.

And ordinary Calvinists on this board have claimed Romans 5:18 does not say justification to life is "available" to all humanity. Note this specific problem in understanding was not addressed.

Calvinism's Limited Atonement is a denial that God loves humanity, and that Christ died as a ransom for all.

Did God intend the death of jesus to save for certain some, or that he hopes all might come, but he is not sure if they will?

 

[Van]

Did God intend the death of jesus to save for certain some, or that he hopes all might come, but he is not sure if they will?

You have asked this same question many times, and I have answered it many times. Thus your post is for the purpose of avoiding the thread topic.

Did Y1 address any of the issues highlighted in post 75? Nope Go figure...

Roman 5:15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.

Clearly all humanity became spiritually dead, separated from God as a consequence of Adam's sin, and just as clearly the gift of the means of salvation also abounds to all humanity as a consequence of Christ's sacrifice.

 

[AustinC]

Yet another non-specific claim (refuse to accept what the Bible tells us) which is like claiming the opponent is wrong without evidence.

This is all the Calvinists offer which shows their objective is to avoid discussion of biblical truth as presented in this thread. John Calvin taught that the view of Limited Atonement was unbiblical.

Yet another non-specific attack displaying passive aggressive behavior...

 

[AustinC]

Clearly all humanity became spiritually dead, separated from God as a consequence of Adam's sin, and just as clearly the gift of the means of salvation also abounds to all humanity as a consequence of Christ's sacrifice.

The bolded statement cannot be found in the Bible anywhere. In truth it is a passive aggressive statement that a discerning person will recognize as human works salvation ("gift of the means [works] of salvation).

 

[Van]

Yet another non-specific attack displaying passive aggressive behavior...

Note a specific claim, "John Calvin taught the view of Limited Atonement was unbiblical" is said to be a non-specific attack! Thus yet another example of a material false statement for the purpose of obfuscation. Go figure...