John Calvin vs Calvinism

[DaveXR650]

. It is important to those who want to know how theology and doctrine develop.

This is true. There are Calvinists who have such a strong belief in the preeminence of the extent of the atonement that they openly denigrate efforts to preach repentance and they do not believe that there is a bonified offer of the gospel to anyone, indiscriminately.

There are some who believe that without the "L" you really don't have Calvinism but they do believe in a true "offer" of the gospel to everyone so they go through many complicated explanations to explain how this all works. And some of the explanations are very good, although I'm not sure I'm completely satisfied with them.

It does seem evident to me that Calvin himself for sure did not develop the idea of a limited atonement but I don't know if he would have opposed it. He did believe that God was sovereign in salvation and had a low view of our "free will".

I don't see anything wrong with the OP bringing out the fact that there is some doubt that Calvin believed in a limited atonement. If anyone has hard evidence from his works that this is not the case please put up the references.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

ok, I have you on ignore

Wow, your hurting my feelings…. Not.

 

[JonC]

This is true. There are Calvinists who have such a strong belief in the preeminence of the extent of the atonement that they openly denigrate efforts to preach repentance and they do not believe that there is a bonified offer of the gospel to anyone, indiscriminately.

There are some who believe that without the "L" you really don't have Calvinism but they do believe in a true "offer" of the gospel to everyone so they go through many complicated explanations to explain how this all works. And some of the explanations are very good, although I'm not sure I'm completely satisfied with them.

It does seem evident to me that Calvin himself for sure did not develop the idea of a limited atonement but I don't know if he would have opposed it. He did believe that God was sovereign in salvation and had a low view of our "free will".

I don't see anything wrong with the OP bringing out the fact that there is some doubt that Calvin believed in a limited atonement. If anyone has hard evidence from his works that this is not the case please put up the references.

We have to remember that Calvinism is not defined by John Calvin. He did lay much of the groundwork, but it developed from there.

We can say Calvin held to a universal atonement, but he may have refined his views had he been alive when the scope of Atonement was developed.

It's kinda like all of those people who believed man could never build a vehicle that flies through the air. Were they alive after the invention of the airplane they may have changed their belief.

Theory addresses contemporary issues. For Calvin, and Luther, these were errors they saw in the Roman Catholic Church. For those who developed limited atonement it was a rise within Calvinism that questioned the degree of predestination in salvation.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

This is true. There are Calvinists who have such a strong belief in the preeminence of the extent of the atonement that they openly denigrate efforts to preach repentance and they do not believe that there is a bonified offer of the gospel to anyone, indiscriminately.

I believe this to be a straw man argument. I’ve never seen anyone on this board openly denigrate repentance have you?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

We have to remember that Calvinism is not defined by John Calvin. He did lay much of the groundwork, but it developed from there.

We can say Calvin held to a universal atonement, but he may have refined his views had he been alive when the scope of Atonement was developed.

It's kinda like all of those people who believed man could never build a vehicle that flies through the air. Were they alive after the invention of the airplane they may have changed their belief.

Theory addresses contemporary issues. For Calvin, and Luther, these were errors they saw in the Roman Catholic Church. For those who developed limited atonement it was a rise within Calvinism that questioned the degree of predestination in salvation.

And so how does a person prove that out? And what degree is there predestination in salvation and then where do you back off?

 

[tyndale1946]

I believe this to be a straw man argument. I’ve never seen anyone on this board openly denigrate repentance have you?

Ephesians 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Dead men don't repent, only those spiritually alive, in Christ do!... Brother Glen

 

[JonC]

And so how does a person prove that out? And what degree is there predestination in salvation and then where do you back off?

Insofar as John Calvin's view, it is a matter of history. It cannot be proven he would or would not have changed his positions if he were alive a century later.

Insofar as Calvinism, at it's core it's philosophy. It can't be proven. If it could the debate would not exist.

I believe one backs off when all issues are resolved by Scripture and people can agree to disagree on interpretation. This can't happen with Calvinism because the disagreements are based on philosophy (and here there will always be disagreement).

The debate only exist within Calvinistic positions (within different theologies that hold a Calvinistic view of the Atonement). Outside of debating the scope of Atonement is meaningless.

We have to remember that Arminianism is of a Calvinistic trajectory. The theology agrees with Calvinism to a great extent, but starts falling away from Calvinism when it comes to predestination.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Ephesians 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Dead men don't repent, only those spiritually alive, in Christ do!... Brother Glen

Ephesians 2:1
And you were dead in your trespasses and sins

This is all that the Greek actually says

 

[tyndale1946]

Ephesians 2:1
And you were dead in your trespasses and sins

This is all that the Greek actually says

Really?... Then you are lacking in your translation... If you're are not quickened you're going no where... You can keep your Greek... Brother Glen

 

[DaveXR650]

I believe this to be a straw man argument. I’ve never seen anyone on this board openly denigrate repentance have you?

You have a bad habit of changing what people say and then arguing against that. That would be a straw man argument. I said some branches of Calvinism are against the general preaching of repentance because, as @tyndale1946 said, dead men don't repent.

Within Calvinism, there are schools of thought that teach you to use apologetics, call for repentance and faith, use "winsome" methods to attract people to the gospel. And there are others who believe you preach Christ and him crucified and those who are elect will hear and believe and the non-elect won't. There are some who taught that you don't invite people to come to Christ unless they have shown evidence of a spiritual work in their lives.

So yes, there is a large group within Calvinism that teach it is wrong to tell people in general to repent because they believe so strongly that repentance is the work only of one who is already saved that you are improperly handling the gospel when you do that.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Really?... Then you are lacking in your translation... If you're are not quickened you're going no where... You can keep your Greek... Brother Glen

This is from the KJV (1769)

And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins

King James Bible (Oxford) 1769 Textus Receptus Bibles

the words in italics mean they are not in any Greek manuscript!

I go with the facts!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Ephesians 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Dead men don't repent, only those spiritually alive, in Christ do!... Brother Glen

When do they repent then, after regeneration is my belief.

 

[tyndale1946]

This is from the KJV (1769)

And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins

King James Bible (Oxford) 1769 Textus Receptus Bibles

the words in italics mean they are not in any Greek manuscript!

I go with the facts!

And so do I and like I said, if you're are not quickened (by the Holy Spirit alone) you are not going anywhere... Btw I been hearing this... the words in italics mean they are not in any Greek manuscript!... Since I've been here, so you are telling me that a dead man, has the power to become undead?... You go with the facts... I go with the truth!... Brother Glen

 

[tyndale1946]

When do they repent then, after regeneration is my belief.

Mine too!... Brother Glen

 

[tyndale1946]

Mine too!... Brother Glen

Regeneration... Born Again... New Birth... Quickened... Its all the same thing with different names... Brother Glen

( I forgot to add its a Sovereign operation by God alone)

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Regeneration... Born Again... New Birth... Quickened... Its all the same thing with different names... Brother Glen

( I forgot to add its a Sovereign operation by God alone)

You know, I’m really happy I’m in the PB camp when I see all these contentious arguments on a continuous endless loop attacking Calvinism… it makes me so tired of of it, especially when someone demeans another and continuously proof texts. At least there are people on here willing to agree to disagree… but this is just bull crap

 

[Alan Gross]

This is from the KJV (1769)

And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins

King James Bible (Oxford) 1769 Textus Receptus Bibles

the words in italics mean they are not in any Greek manuscript!

'the words in italics mean they are not in any Greek manuscript!"

I go with the facts!

That's some powerful facts that we appreciate you sharing with us.

I'm not sure that I have that great an appreciation for someone continually
reinnerating that they have to share with us what they don't believe.

I mean, thanks anyway. What about that.

By articulating what is implicitly expressed, by the Divine Presence
and Activity in the Regenerative Omnipotent Resurrection Power
of Spiritual Repentance and Faith
When GOD GRANTS and GIVES A DEAD SOUL Eternal Life OVER Eternal Death,

as the translators have simply Exalted and Given Credit
to the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, for what is explicitly stated, by "were dead".

What in the Name of God do you think Happened there, anyway??

After they "were dead"?

They "WERE dead".

What do you think was supposed to have happened then?

If you're going to come off with something like:
"the dead souls Quickened themselves
into the possession of Eternal Life, all by their lonesome", we're out.

But, isn't that somewhat all that is left there to be inferred,
by leaving. "And you were dead in your trespasses and sins",?

Under translated?

Or, to just have it to infer,
"you were dead and you will remain dead, still,
in your trespasses and sins"?

I, for one, no like: "the dead souls Quickened themselves",
or, "you were dead and you will remain dead, still."

And, I lend credence to the credence to the expertise and judgment
if the KJV translators to be in considerable excess of that of yours.

Isn't that the Most Mysteriously Mystifying Mystery you've heard, lately?

Get used to it.

So, you just wanted to share with us something else
you don't believe in the Bible?

Wow.

That's great.

This is what it says in our KJV translation;

This is from the KJV (1769)

And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins

King James Bible (Oxford) 1769 Textus Receptus Bibles

Otherwise what's your point in this is?

Ephesians 2:1
And you were dead in your trespasses and sins

This is all that the Greek actually says

Praise God.

What are you going to tell us next, that you don't believe?

I can't wait.

But, don't you believe what had already been said just a few verses before,
in the previous chapter?,

in Ephesians 1:19;

"And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,

20 "Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead,
and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,"

God was Working His same Mighty Power
when He Raised our lost souls from the dead,
that He Wrought in "Christ, when He Raised Him from the dead."

Are the translators and the translation to be dismissed and despised
and rejected of men, then, for having, you "hath he quickened"???

In italics?


How about?

"When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God,
saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life."

It is God Who Grants repentance, like tyndale1946 was saying.

Do you not believe that?


And, here's one for you.

I say: Faith is the Gift of God.

8 "For by grace are ye saved through faith;
and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:"

Are you going to tell us that you don't believe the Bible there, either?

And, then, tell us that we aren't permitted by you, to believe it?


Then, btw, as long as you're at it,
we've got Book on, 'God...hath Quickened".

4 "But God, who is rich in mercy,
for His great love wherewith He loved us,

5 "Even when we were dead in sins,
hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved"


"συνεζωοποιησεν".

IT'S GREEK TO ME.

U?

Textus Receptus (Scrivener 1894)
και οντας ημας νεκρους τοις παραπτωμασιν συνεζωοποιησεν τω χριστω χαριτι εστε σεσωσμενοι

Textus Receptus (Elzevir 1624)
και οντας ημας νεκρους τοις παραπτωμασιν συνεζωοποιησεν τω χριστω χαριτι εστε σεσωσμενοι

Textus Receptus (Beza 1598)
και οντας ημας νεκρους τοις παραπτωμασιν συνεζωοποιησεν τω χριστω χαριτι εστε σεσωσμενοι

Textus Receptus (Stephanus 1550)
και οντας ημας νεκρους τοις παραπτωμασιν συνεζωοποιησεν τω χριστω χαριτι εστε σεσωσμενοι

Byzantine Majority Text 2000
και οντας ημας νεκρους τοις παραπτωμασιν συνεζωοποιησεν τω χριστω χαριτι εστε σεσωσμενοι

Byzantine Majority Text (Family 35)
και οντας ημας νεκρους τοις παραπτωμασιν συνεζωοποιησεν τω χριστω χαριτι εστε σεσωσμενοι

 

[atpollard]

If you don't like what Calvin actually says, maybe you should stop calling yourself a "Calvinist"

I am indifferent to what Calvin said. I call myself a Particular Baptist because I accept the Baptist Distinctives (by choice) and believe in Particular Atonement (Jesus saves particular - ie. specific - individuals) because I have actually read the Bible and believe what Scripture says. The writings of John Calvin never entered into the decision. Ironically, I was a “Particular Baptist” for two decades before I ever heard the terms “TULIP”, “Calvinism” or “Baptist” … I merely believed what I read (Credobaptism [John 4:1-2], Father Draws [John 6:44], salvation by faith as a gift of God to a people dead in sin [Ephesians 2:1-10], God at work in us [Philippians 2:13], Foreknown, predestined, called, justified, glorified by God [Romans 8:29-30]) and later learned that my scriptural beliefs had a name.

 

[kyredneck]

because, as @tyndale1946 said, dead men don't repent.

Andrew Fuller introduced the doctrine of 'duty faith', and put the 'bad mouth' on the venerable John Gill, after his passing, accusing him and contemporary Particular Baptists of 'High (read hyper) Calvinism'. The 'split' between Gillites and Fullerites was what ultimately spawned the denomination now known as Primitive Baptists. FYI.

 

[DaveXR650]

Andrew Fuller introduced the doctrine of 'duty faith', and put the 'bad mouth' on the venerable John Gill, after his passing, accusing him and contemporary Particular Baptists of 'High (read hyper) Calvinism'. The 'split' between Gillites and Fullerites was what ultimately spawned the denomination now known as Primitive Baptists. FYI.

I didn't know about the split, and I'm not really up on Gill, not because I have anything against him but you just can't get to everyone. I don't have anything against PB's. Our old church used to use guys from the PB church to fill in for our pastor when he was gone and one of my best friends is a member there now.

But yes, Fuller was an example of a Calvinist who believed in a bonified offer of the gospel to everyone. Plus the Puritan era guys called the "Marrow men" also believed in that. There is also a more modern book called "The Crux of the Free Offer of the Gospel", by Sam Waldron, which makes the case that this is standard Calvinist teaching.

Of course all the Arminians and Amyraldian (4 point Calvinists) and all the semi-Pelagians and free willers do too.