Snippets from Calvin's Commentaries

[Rippon]

I did not want to derail another thread with this subject matter . It seems many are confused regarding Calvin . My Calvinism is not based on John Calvin, but the Bible . Yet John Calvin was a wonderful Bible expositor among his many gifts . I think it is unfair to cast him aside with a wave of the hand and a bigoted frame of mind . It is best to really read what he wrote before lambasting him . And after really reading him you may end up commending him .:love2:

Here is some of what John Calvin commented on regarding 1 Timothy 2:4.

Hence we see the childish folly of those who represent this passage to be opposed to predestination . " If God " say they, " wishes all men indiscriminately to be saved , it is false that some are predestined by his eternal purpose to salvation , and others to perdition . " They might have had some ground for saying this , if Paul were speaking here about individual men ; although even then we should not have wanted the means of replying to their argument ; for , although the will of God ought not to be judged from his secret decrees , when he reveals them to us by outward signs , yet it does not therefore follow that he has not determined with himself what he intends to do as to every individual man .
... the apostle simply means ; that there is no people and no rank in the world that is excluded from salvation ; because God wishes that the gospel should be proclaimed to all without exception . Now the preaching of the gospel gives life ; and hence he justly concludes that God invites all equally to partake salvation . But the present discourse relates to classes of men , and not to individual persons ; for his sole object is , to include in this number princes and foreign nations .

 

[Rippon]

Commenting on 2 Thessalonians 2;13 he says in part:

... this consolation belongs to all the elect of God , without exception . When , therefore , he says , from the beginning , he means that there is no danger lest their salvation , which is founded on God's eternal election , should be overthrown , whatever tumultuous changes may occur . "However Satan may mix and confound all things in the world , your salvation , notwithstanding , has been placed on a footing of safety , prior to the creation of the world ." Here therefore , is the true port of safety , that God , who elected us of old , will deliver us from all the evils that threaten us . For we are elected to salvation ; we shall , therefore , be safe from destruction .

 

[Humblesmith]

Calvin's Commentary on Romans 5:15:

What some think, that the Apostle carries on here a chain of reasoning, I know not whether it will be deemed by all sufficiently evident. It may indeed be justly inferred, that since the fall of Adam had such an effect as to produce the ruin of many, much more efficacious is the grace of God to the benefit of many; inasmuch as it is admitted, that Christ is much more powerful to save, than Adam was to destroy. But as they cannot be disproved, who wish to take the passage without this inference, I am willing that they should choose either of these views; though what next follows cannot be deemed an inference, yet it is of the same meaning. It is hence probable, that Paul rectifies, or by way of exception modifies, what he had said of the likeness between Christ and Adam. But observe, that a larger number (plures) are not here contrasted with many (multis,) for he speaks not of the number of men: but as the sin of Adam has destroyed many, he draws this conclusion, -- that the righteousness of Christ will be no less efficacious to save many.

Calvin's Commentary on Isaiah 53:12:

I have followed the ordinary interpretation, that "he bore the sin of many," though we might without impropriety consider the Hebrew word Mybr (rabbim,) to denote "Great and Noble." And thus the contrast would be more complete, that Christ, while "he was ranked among transgressors," became surety for every one of the most excellent of the earth, and suffered in the room of those who hold the highest rank in the world. I leave this to the judgment of my readers. Yet I approve of the ordinary reading, that he alone bore the punishment of many, because on him was laid the guilt of the whole world. It is evident from other passages, and especially from the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, that "many" sometimes denotes "all."

 

[Rippon]

This excerpt is from his comments on John 3:16 :

Let us remember , on the other hand , that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ , still faith is not common to all . For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all , but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens , that they may seek him by faith .

 

[Rippon]

This is from his comments on 1 John 2:1,2 :

"And not ours only. " He added this for the sake of amplifying , in order that the faithful might be assured that the expiation made by Christ , extends to all who by faith embrace the gospel .
Here a question may be raised , how have the sins of the whole world been expiated ? I pass by the dotages of the fanatics , who under this pretence extend salvation to all the reprobate , and therefore to Satan himself . Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation ... for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church . Then under the word "all' or whole , he does not include the reprobate , but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world . For then is really made evident , as it is meet , the grace of Christ , when it is declared to be the only true salvation of the world .

 

[Rippon]

The following is a bit of Calvin's remarks on a section of Hebrews 2:13 :

"Which God hath given me ." Here is pointed out the primary cause of obedience , even that God has adopted us . Christ brings none to the Father , but those given him by the Father ; and this donation , we know , depends on eternal election ; for those whom the Father has destined to life , he delivers to the keeping of his Son , that he may defend them . This is what he says by John , " All that the Father has given me , will come to me ." ( John 6:37.) That we then submit to God by the obedience of faith , let us learn to ascribe this altogether to his mercy ; for otherwise we shall never be led to him by the hand of Christ . Besides ,this doctrine supplies us with strong ground of confidence ; for who can tremble under the guidance and protection of Christ ? Who , while relying on such a keeper and guardian , would not boldly disregard all dangers ? And , doubtless , while Christ says , " Behold , I and the children," he really fulfills what he elsewhere promises , that he will not suffer any of those to perish whom he has received from the Father . ( John 10:28.)

 

[Allan]

This excerpt is from his comments on John 3:16 :

Let us remember , on the other hand , that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ , still faith is not common to all . For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all , but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens , that they may seek him by faith .

Here is what it also says:

John 3:16, he said: ". . . The Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish.'' Concerning the term whosoever in the same verse, he said: "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 impact of the term world, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favour 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.''

No one disputes the elect will be saved but what is typically disputed is that God Reconciled Himself to the WHOLE world and invites ALL man to come into life with Himself. He could not invite those who He had not reconciled Himself to.

 

[Allan]

The following is a bit of Calvin's remarks on a section of Hebrews 2:13 :

"Which God hath given me ." Here is pointed out the primary cause of obedience , even that God has adopted us . Christ brings none to the Father , but those given him by the Father ; and this donation , we know , depends on eternal election ; for those whom the Father has destined to life , he delivers to the keeping of his Son , that he may defend them . This is what he says by John , " All that the Father has given me , will come to me ." ( John 6:37.) That we then submit to God by the obedience of faith , let us learn to ascribe this altogether to his mercy ; for otherwise we shall never be led to him by the hand of Christ . Besides ,this doctrine supplies us with strong ground of confidence ; for who can tremble under the guidance and protection of Christ ? Who , while relying on such a keeper and guardian , would not boldly disregard all dangers ? And , doubtless , while Christ says , " Behold , I and the children," he really fulfills what he elsewhere promises , that he will not suffer any of those to perish whom he has received from the Father . ( John 10:28.)

None dispute this - well maybe his VIEW of WHERE and HOW election is done - but regardless the immutable truth is not changed and so the very essence of what he is saying stands to us Non-Cals as well. (with regard the THIS statement)

 

[Rippon]

Allan , you have not read his Institutes or commentaries as closely as you would have others to believe . You are reading through the filter of Ron Rhoades who probably got it from Norm Geisler Vance or Hunt . John Calvin does not reverse himself in the course of a few paragraphs . He said earlier in reference to some words on John 3:16 :

"Both points are distinctly stated to us : namely , that faith in Christ brings life to all , and that Christ brought life , because The Heavenly Father loves the human race ..."

Allan , you have to exercise more caution when reading Calvin , Gill or Owen . Many times they are prefacing the thoughts of adversaries before they tell their side . Make sure of what is really going on , otherwise you will remain confused .

 

[Allan]

Allan , you have not read his Institutes or commentaries as closely as you would have others to believe . You are reading through the filter of Ron Rhoades who probably got it from Norm Geisler Vance or Hunt . John Calvin does not reverse himself in the course of a few paragraphs . He said earlier in reference to some words on John 3:16 :

"Both points are distinctly stated to us : namely , that faith in Christ brings life to all , and that Christ brought life , because The Heavenly Father loves the human race ..."

Allan , you have to exercise more caution when reading Calvin , Gill or Owen . Many times they are prefacing the thoughts of adversaries before they tell their side . Make sure of what is really going on , otherwise you will remain confused .

Rippon, do not pretend you have any inkling as to what I have read or not or even that I am misleading others. Your statement though I do not like to say it points infatically that you have without compuction, lied. You insinuate that either I have not read Calvins works closely or intellegently (illistrating complete ineptness at comprehension) or that I tried to mislead people. I did not mislead and my comprehesion is actaully exceptional but my spelling and grammer in writting is at best pathetic scholastically speaking. So if you want to speak of my weaknesses stick with the truth it wont make you look so bad after the fact...

Granted the 'few' abstracts I posted were from Ron Rhoades sites concerning Calvins Commentaries - However, I only used them because I posted some of his findings (being a Calvinist himself) on here before and in that which I posted were some things of note to your OP. In other words they were easily accessable to me since I am not at home but work. The rest the authors you pulled out of the air.
John 3:16 Are you reading the revision of Calvins work on the Commentaries??
What I posted stated Calvins's thoughts concerning WHO the WORLD was that God SO loved...

John 3:16, he said: ". . . The Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish.'' Concerning the term whosoever in the same verse, he said: "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 impact of the term world, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favour 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.''

It is ok for Calvin not to hold some of his previous philisophical thoughts when as he later noted they were not accurate and change them. He did not change his whole system but mainly his view on Christs atonment being made for ALL man but effectual to only the believing elect who He chose before the foundation of the World.

I fully understand... and is Why I don't hold to the Calvinistic View point of the Immutable truths we both hold so dear.

 

[Rippon]

You are right Allan . I was not reading the Calvin quote in context . He was not speaking of adversaries at all . Calvin in that section did say that " The Heavenly Father loves the human race " etc. I am sorry about that . I guess I had my Calvinistic lenses on there . John Calvin was not really sounding too Calvinistic in that place . But , of course he said shortly afterwards that "the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens , that they may seek him by faith ."

I know it may sound strange and even contradictory that Calvin wasn't being very Calvinistic in that place . I said in my OP that Calvin was a fallible man and open to criticism . So Owen , Gill , Henry ,Turretin , Hoeksema , Warfield and many others should be consulted for explanations of biblical texts in addition to calvin

I still maintain that there is no disjunction between Calvin's Institutes ( written between ages 26 and 50 ) and his commentaries . Since various editions of his Institutes span most of his life alongside his commentaries .

Mr. Ron Rhoades is " an avowed Calvinist" you said . I usually hear the word "avowed" before the word communist though . It has a distinctly negative connotation . Please don't depend on him second-hand for your info on John Calvin . I do not regard Rhoades as any more a Calvinist than Norm Geisler .

Allan , you had said in passing that Calvin never uses Scripture for his positions -- ever . That of course is as wrong as can be . Perhaps you were referencing only one passage he was commenting upon .

 

[Allan]

I still maintain that there is no disjunction between Calvin's Institutes ( written between ages 26 and 50 ) and his commentaries . Since various editions of his Institutes span most of his life alongside his commentaries .

Mr. Ron Rhoades is " an avowed Calvinist" you said . I usually hear the word "avowed" before the word communist though . It has a distinctly negative connotation . Please don't depend on him second-hand for your info on John Calvin . I do not regard Rhoades as any more a Calvinist than Norm Geisler .

Allan , you had said in passing that Calvin never uses Scripture for his positions -- ever . That of course is as wrong as can be . Perhaps you were referencing only one passage he was commenting upon .

From your Thread on the Calvins Institutes:

Originally Posted by Rippon
But since he foresees future events only by reason of the fact that he decreed that they take place , they vainly raise a quarrel over foreknowledge , when it is clear that all things take place rather by his determination and bidding . ( 3:23.6)

Pure philosophical teaching as he doesn't substantiate it with any scriptures, ever!

Much of his view in this area IS philosophy and not biblical, but guess work which was introduced into his theology help hold this system together. Nothing wrong with that per-say but we should never hold and unknown as a solid biblical truth by which we 'establish' doctrine on it.

This is what your referencing as to the "ever" statement. Please note that it is in reference to his statement of HOW and WHEN and WHY God forsees future events. The comment I made could have been better worded as I meant that this view of predeterming or predestining in not substantiated via the scriptures and (here is the word) 'never' has been. (It should have read ...with any sound scriptural support, ever) You must read into the scriptures this or come to them with presupposition to articulate ANY view of the HOW's, WHY, and WHEN's God did before the foundation (creating) of the World as no one knows these things but all we have as scarce shadows that God DID these things. This is why it is a philosophical argument and not truely a scriptural one, one of a point of view which is used by both sides to establish and meld together parts of thier doctrines.

I do know much about Mr. Rhoades actaully. I can across some infomation a while back while do a study on a completely unrelated topic. What I found interested me in what he stated about early church fathers including Augustine, Calvin, Luther, and other early reformed brethren who held to Unlimited Atonement. By that I mean that Christ died for ALL men but only the Elect are redeemed via faith in Christ alone.

I agree with you brother about second hand information. I use it much like commentaries. Some are good others are good for some things and some are good for nothing. I use them to do my own research and conclude the matter with much prayer and research of the Word Itself.