John Calvin vs Calvinism

[JonC]

Calvin is very clear that he doesn't believe in any limit on the Death of Jesus Christ. He uses the phrase, EVERYONE WITHOUT EXCEPTION

Yes, I know.

Calvinism has evolved since John Calvin. Like I said, it is just as much indebted to Beza. Limited Atonement is the logical conclusion of Calvinistic Atonement...but Calvin himself did not get there.

 

[Alan Gross]

What you are wanting to say about:

the Church

is that they are not:

the Jews and Gentiles

What else is there supposed to be?

Doesn't "the Jews and Gentiles" pretty much cover everybody?

...

It's like folks who play around by saying that they aren't
"Calvinist or Arminian". How's that?

They are distinct opposites.

What else is there?

Doesn't one or the other encompass everybody?

 

[JonC]

It's like folks who play around by saying that they aren't
"Calvinist or Arminian". How's that?

They are distinct opposites.

What else is there?

Doesn't one or the other encompass everybody?

No, one or the other does not encompass everybody.

Arminianism is of a Calvinist trajectory. The theology was, at one time, within orthodox Calvinism. But even then Calvinism (with Arminianism included) was a minority position.

Within the basic Calvinistic understanding of Atonement there is Calvinism (soteriology), Arminianism, and Amyraldianism.

But there are also Christians who do not hold a basic Calvinistic understanding of Atonement (who reject Calvinism, Arminianism, and Amyraldianism).

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Calvinism was built on Calvin's work. Theodore Beza is just as much the author of Calvinism as John Calvin. Limited Atonement is the logical conclusion of Calvin's theology, but Calvin himself did not follow it to that conclusion.

Bezaism

 

[tyndale1946]

This is dealing with the Jews and Gentiles, nothing to do with the Church

The militant church NO!... The triumphant church YES!... Brother Glen

 

[JonC]

Bezaism

To be fair, "Calvinism" referred to John Calvin's view of Communion as opposed to Martin Luther's view. Luther coined the term.

 

[SavedByGrace]

The militant church NO!... The triumphant church YES!... Brother Glen

Romans 9-11 is Paul's arguments about God's Elect People the Jews, and the Gentiles. the Gentiles are NOT here referring to believing Christians!

Don't force the natural meaning of these chapters for your theology!

 

[MrW]

John Calvin vs Calvinism

“Did Jesus die for the whole world without exception, as most Calvinists/Reformed teach, or, did He die only for the “elect” only?

*****









John Calvin on 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” (emphasis mine)

Calvin on Mark 14:24, where Jesus says that His death is a “ransom for many”.

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

The context of these comments by Calvin, are very important.

“And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them and said, "Take, eat; this is My body." 23 Then He took the cup, and when He had given thanks He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 And He said to them, "This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many.” NKJV

Here we read of Jesus Christ giving the “Lord’s Supper” in the bread and wine, which represent His Body and Blood offered on the cross for lost sinners. Jesus’ use of “shed for many”, Calvin rightly says, is NOT “a part of the world”, as in the “elect”, which is the false teaching of some “Calvinists/Reformed”; but for “the WHOLE HUMAN RACE”. No doubt here about the extent of the Death of Jesus Christ, as Calvin understood what the Bible says.

Further, we also read in the Account in Luke’s Gospel, that Judas was present for the Lord’s Supper, and actually took part in the bread and wine.

“In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you. This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table” Luke 22:20-21

“poured out for YOU”, also includes Judas.

Some argue, that the Greek does not have the word “is”, which is in italics in Versions like the King James. However, the Greek participle παραδιδόντος, used here, “of him who betrays”, is in the present tense, which means the use of “is”, is correct.

Some honest Reformed theologians actually admit to this fact.

Matthew Henry,

"By placing this after the institution of the Lord’s supper, though in Matthew and Mark it is placed before it, it seems plain that Judas did receive the Lord’s supper, did eat of that bread and drink of that cup; for, after the solemnity was over, Christ said, Behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table."

John Gill

"From Luke's account it appears most clearly, that Judas was not only at the passover, but at the Lord's supper, since this was said when both were over"

Jesus Christ shed His Blood even for Judas!

Calvin on 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.”

Note again the language that Calvin uses here. “indiscriminately to the whole human race”; “all men without exception…they need to be reconciled to him”; “offered to all, that each of us”. Nothing LIMITED in the extent of the Death of Jesus Christ here by John Calvin!

Calvin on 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”

Yet again the language used by Calvin, is clearly for a UNIVERSAL Death of Jesus Christ!

How can those who claim to be “Calvinists”, and say they follow the teaching of John Calvin, continue to believe in the UNBIBLICAL HERESY, that Jesus Christ only died for the “elect”? They honestly cannot call themselves “Calvinists”, and continue to teach that Jesus did not die for the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE, and the Inspired Word of God clearly Teaches.

*****

I think you have a typo. Most Calvinists DO believe Christ died only for the select few.

That is the point of the “L”.

 

[SavedByGrace]

*****

I think you have a typo. Most Calvinists DO believe Christ died only for the select few.

That is the point of the “L”.

thanks, well spotted

 

[SavedByGrace]

What you are wanting to say about:


is that they are not:


What else is there supposed to be?

Doesn't "the Jews and Gentiles" pretty much cover everybody?

...

It's like folks who play around by saying that they aren't
"Calvinist or Arminian". How's that?

They are distinct opposites.

What else is there?

Doesn't one or the other encompass everybody?

The arguments in Romans 9-11 is to do with the Jews who still considered themselves as God's "elect" in New Testament times. Paul is here saying that they are no longer "elect", and all who accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour and Lord, are ELECT, which includes those from the Gentiles

 

[DaveXR650]

The arguments in Romans 9-11 is to do with the Jews who still considered themselves as God's "elect" in New Testament times. Paul is here saying that they are no longer "elect", and all who accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour and Lord, are ELECT, which includes those from the Gentiles

Just understand that the above was not Calvin's view of election. He took the standard position that Calvinists take on Romans 9, that election is based on God's sovereignty.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Just understand that the above was not Calvin's view of election. He took the standard position that Calvinists take on Romans 9, that election is based on God's sovereignty.

are you suggesting that Calvin believed in a "limited" Death of Jesus Christ?

 

[DaveXR650]

are you suggesting that Calvin believed in a "limited" Death of Jesus Christ?

I honestly don't know. I think it's probably as Jon said in that Calvin never really fleshed that out. But I have Calvin's commentary on the whole Bible and his views on Romans chapter 9 are exactly in line with the standard explanation that the modern Calvinists give on that.

My own view is that Christ has died, and that we have a warrant to come to him for salvation that is absolute, and supersedes all speculation on the extent of the atonement. But I also believe that we are naturally blind to all this and need first to be supernaturally made to see - not just more light. So I have no problem with God being sovereign in who gets saved. But that belief is shared by many Calvinists, as well as classical Arminians, Wesleyans, Amylraldians (Baxterians) and others. What makes it even more confusing is that even Owen, who was a definite 5 pointer, also was adamant about the absolute warrant anyone has to come to Christ.

I'm glad you're exploring this and don't mean in any way to knock your views on the subject. Calvin himself said in his commentary on Romans 9 that this is way beyond human ability to comprehend.

 

[JonC]

Just understand that the above was not Calvin's view of election. He took the standard position that Calvinists take on Romans 9, that election is based on God's sovereignty.

Calvin did believe in a limited election. He stopped short of placing this under the doctrine of divine sovereignty. Beza, in systemizing the "Institutes" placed salvation under that doctrine.


Limited Atonement is the logical conclusion of Calvin's view of Atonement. Calvinism, however, had not worked itself out to that extent (and wouldn't until after James Arminius' death).

During Arminius' lifetime Arminianism was a sect within Calvinism. Even at Dort some Calvinists objected to Limited Atonement.

These ideas developed after Calvin.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Limited Atonement is the logical conclusion of Calvin's view of Atonement

The OP shows that this is not true

 

[JonC]

The OP shows that this is not true

No, it doesn't. The OP shows that Calvin had not arrived at Limited Atonement and held a belief to the contrary.

But the OP ignores a lot of what Calvin believed (like a limited view of election). Saying that Christ died for all but God chose only a select group has the same affect - not all can be saved).

And the OP elevated Calvin (or at least your post here) to deny the possibility that John Calvin could have held inconsistent views.


The fact of the matter is that nobody believed Limited Atonement until after Beza. But the actual scope of the Atonement was not an issue during Calvin's lifetime.


A similar argument to the OP would be that the Early Church was not trinitarians because they did not affirm the doctrine of the Trinity. But that doctrine was developed after the Early Church period, so it would be a poor argument.

 

[SavedByGrace]

No, it doesn't. The OP shows that Calvin had not arrived at Limited Atonement and held a belief to the contrary.

But the OP ignores a lot of what Calvin believed (like a limited view of election). Saying that Christ died for all but God chose only a select group has the same affect - not all can be saved).

And the OP elevated Calvin (or at least your post here) to deny the possibility that John Calvin could have held inconsistent views.


The fact of the matter is that nobody believed Limited Atonement until after Beza. But the actual scope of the Atonement was not an issue during Calvin's lifetime.


A similar argument to the OP would be that the Early Church was not trinitarians because they did not affirm the doctrine of the Trinity. But that doctrine was developed after the Early Church period, so it would be a poor argument.

Calvin is very clear on John 3.16 that the Death of Jesus Christ is for

EVERYONE WITHOUT EXCEPTION

can't get any clearer

 

[SavedByGrace]

No, it doesn't. The OP shows that Calvin had not arrived at Limited Atonement and held a belief to the contrary.

But the OP ignores a lot of what Calvin believed (like a limited view of election). Saying that Christ died for all but God chose only a select group has the same affect - not all can be saved).

And the OP elevated Calvin (or at least your post here) to deny the possibility that John Calvin could have held inconsistent views.


The fact of the matter is that nobody believed Limited Atonement until after Beza. But the actual scope of the Atonement was not an issue during Calvin's lifetime.


A similar argument to the OP would be that the Early Church was not trinitarians because they did not affirm the doctrine of the Trinity. But that doctrine was developed after the Early Church period, so it would be a poor argument.

I will add that Calvin's comments on Mark 14.24 shows that he believed Jesus Christ died also for Judas

 

[JonC]

Calvin is very clear on John 3.16 that the Death of Jesus Christ is for

EVERYONE WITHOUT EXCEPTION

can't get any clearer

Lol.....nobody is saying otherwise.

 

[JonC]

I will add that Calvin's comments on Mark 14.24 shows that he believed Jesus Christ died also for Judas

You don't need to. I never disagreed with you insofar as what John Calvin believed.

I said Calvin believed in a limited election.

Why are you looking for an argument where no argument exists?