Was John Calvin A Hyper-Calvinist Or A Moderate Calvinist?

[whatever]

Originally posted by Paul33:
Ransom,

But Calvin also spoke of being "doubly culpable" for rejecting the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

I checked every footnote on the chapter on Calvin from R. T. Kendall's book "Calvinism and English Calvinism to 1648" and have come to agree with his conclusions that Calvin believed that Jesus died for everyone, not just the elect.

The other Calvinists might disown me, but I believe that there is a sense in which it is proper to say that Christ died for all. It is the sense in which God is the Savior of all people, even though all people are not saved. Potentially salvation is theirs if they would only repent and believe. But they won't. God is especially the Savior of those who do believe, and it is how you define that "especially" that determines whether you are C or A or somewhere in between.

I don't know what else Calvin wrote but I am not sure that this is enough to prove conclusively what he thought about the atonement.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

In order for Calvin to be any kind of Calvinist, he would have to be a follower of himself.

 

[whatever]

sfiC,

Maybe you have a point there. Calvin may have been his own worst enemy. Would that mean Calvin was an Arminian?

 

[kiriath_jearim]

"In order for Calvin to be any kind of Calvinist, he would have to be a follower of himself. "

****
I agree. However, there is the old adage "No matter where one goes, there one is." No matter where Calvin went, he would be there.

 

[Paul33]

Whatever,

I appreciate your humility.

I consider myself a Calvinist, but with the same tension that I think Calvin held to some of these doctrines.

It bothers me when my PCA friends are so certain that Calvin taught that Jesus died only for the elect. It is not that clear in his writings, and in many places he seems to be saying something altogether different, namely, that Jesus died for everyone.

Calvin's worst enemies seem to be his disciples, especially Besa and the English Puritans. An over reaction to Arminius?

I believe that Jesus did die for the sins of the whole world, including the sin of unbelief. But there is more to the atonement than just his death on the cross. There is also the intercession that Jesus does before his Father. I believe that Jesus only intercedes for those who are his in Christ, the ones who believe and repent! The penalty for sin has been paid for, but he doesn't have to apply it to everyone.

 

[Faith alone]

Originally posted by kiriath_jearim:
Or, in other words, can one be "excessively one's self" or "moderately one's self"?

Calvin, while not a moderate Calvinist, as many define that term, yet did not hold to the more extreme teachings of Reformed theology today. And I'm not talking about hyper-Calvinists, such as RC Sproul. (I know that he would not classify himself as such, but he's about as hardcore as they get, IMO, and I need some barometer for comparison.)

He did not hold to limited atonement. That idea is generally acknowledged to have come from Beza, a disciple of his. Also, the idea of the present ordo salutis was solidified at the synod of Dort. It was a response to the 5 remonstrances of those who followed Joseph Arminius - a year after his death. It is difficult to really nail down Calvin on that.

Calvin also said that "assurance is of the essence of salvation." I can't imagine many modern Calvinists holding to such a view of faith.

So I would classify Calvin as moderate in his views, though moderate calvinism is generally considered much more middle-of-the-road than what Calvin held to.

ICR 3.3.2 - When this topic is rightly understood it will better appear how man is justified by faith alone, and simple pardon; nevertheless, actual holiness of life, so to speak, is not to be separated from free imputation of righteousness. Now it ought to be a fact beyond controversy that repentance not only constantly follows faith, but is also born of faith. ...There are some, however, who suppose that repentance precedes faith, rather than flows from it, or is produced by it as fruit from a tree. Such persons have never known the power of repentance, and are moved to feel this way by an unduly slight argument.

I can't imagine many Calvinists saying something like that. They generally require repentance before faith, or simultaneous.

Regarding unL,

John Calvin says of this verse [John 1:29]: 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.
http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol34/htm/vii.vii.htm

John Calvin says: "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 [God so loved the world]; 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 [not merely 'without distinction'] to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life."
John 4:42: "They said to the woman, 'We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.'"
http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol34/htm/ix.iii.htm

So I would have to vote that Calvin was at best a 4-pointer.

FWIW,

FA

 

[Faith alone]

Originally posted by EdSutton:
Getting back to the original question, logically, the answer is neither, since the "theological system" we call 'Calvinism' was named for him, some years after his death. The same is true for Arminius, and 'Arminianism'. I would offer that the beliefs and teachings of both John Calvin and Jacob Arminius have suffered more at the hands of their friends than they ever did at the hands of their 'enemies'.
Ed

I would have to agree with this. I find myself agreeing much more with either Calvin or Arminius than Arminianism or Calvinism.

Actually, the same could be said about Luther and modern Lutheranism. He didn't disagree with Calvin that much - in regards to theology.

FA

 

[Faith alone]

Originally posted by Paul33:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ransom:
Paul33 said:

Calvin believed that Jesus died for the sins of the whole world.

While Calvin explicitly affirms four of the so-called Five Points in his theology, what he believed about the scope of the atonement is at best implicit in his writings. This is why there are scholarly articles arguing both sides.

I'm personally persuaded that he did affirm a particular atonement, rather than a general one. But I don't dogmatize on it as a fact of history, and in any case, "what Calvin taught" isn't the standard of orthodoxy.

Ransom,

You may be right. But his commentary on John 3:16 is certainly instructive. It seems that his commentaries favor a general atonement and his Institutes a particular atonement. </font>[/QUOTE]But even his institutes often expressed a general atonement idea, such as those I quoted above.

FA

 

[Faith alone]

Ransom said,

It is common for Arminians to claim that the term whosoever implies a general atonement, but Calvin stops short of affirming this: he says only that the invitation is universal, "but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith."

There are many who are nowhere close to Arminians who claim the same.

For example, IMO Calvin believed that Christ died for all mankind, but that only the elect will/can respond once God has "opened their eyes." That is not limited atonement. I agree that unless God draws someone they will not respond to the gospel. As he enlightens us, we can respond to His drawing, or not. As we respond, seeking Him, more light is given - eventually resulting in faith.

Now that is certainly not L theology, but I agree with your quote of Calvin above.

Moreover, contra the general redemptionists who claim Christ expiated all sin and the only thing condemning unbelievers is their unbelief, Calvin argues: "by the sacrifice of his death, he has atoned for our sins, that nothing may prevent God from acknowledging us as his sons."

Nothing in Calvin's commentary on John 3:16 truly supports the claim that he believed in a general atonement.

Luther took such a position, FWIW. But I do not see that what you have quoted specifically says that a response of faith is not necessary.

John Calvin says of this verse [John 1:29]: "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."
http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol34/htm/vii.vii.htm

John Calvin also says: "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 [God so loved the world]; 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 [not merely 'without distinction'] to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life."

John 4:42: "They said to the woman, 'We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.'"
http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol34/htm/ix.iii.htm

John 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

Regarding this verse John Calvin says:

"God is unwilling that we should be overwhelmed with everlasting destruction, because He has appointed His Son to be the salvation of the world."

Calvin also stated:

"The word world is again repeated, that no man may think himself wholly excluded, if he only keeps the road of faith."
http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol34/htm/ix.iii.htm

Matthew 26:28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Earlier in Matthew Jesus had said that few find eternal life (Matt. 7:14) and few are chosen (22:14). But Christ did not say His blood was poured out for a few, but for many. Calvin says the same thing regarding this verse :

"By the word many He means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race."
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:cZ7JvcpMWycJ:www.chafer.edu/CTSjournal/journals/96c-02.pdf+%2B%22By+the+word+many+He+means+not+a+part+of+the+world+only%22&hl=en
John Calvin, Calvin's Commentaries; Harmony of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, 1949, vol. 3, p. 214.
http://www.christianforums.com/t14738&mode=linear

FA

 

[russell55]

Paul 33,

I have to say, though, that supralapsarianism, in itself, seems to be an extreme position and misrepresentation of the Biblical record.

I agree, but I don't think it's heretical, and hypercalvinism is. BTW, Lorraine Boettner said that supralapsarians make up only around 1% of all 5 point Calvinists. He may have underestimated, but it does seem clear that most Calvinists--by a wide margin--are infralapsarian.

 

[johnp.]

...I believe that there is a sense in which it is proper to say that Christ died for all.

We wouldn't disown you whatever. If this is so then in a sense you are universalistic? How about if 'sufficiency' was used. If God changed His mind and decided that He would save everyone then Jesus would not need to die again as His death was sufficient for the whole of mankind.

It bothers me when my PCA friends are so certain that Calvin taught that Jesus died only for the elect.

Jesus did only die for the elect Paul, that's the point. He came to save His people, Matt 1:21, even if His death was sufficient, and I believe it was, for the sins of everyman He did not die for everyman but a select few, to numerous to count.

The penalty for sin has been paid for, but he doesn't have to apply it to everyone.

I think we have to view this in another way. If Jesus died for everyone's sins then everyone is saved. It a legal thing. If a debt has been paid it cannot be demanded again.

If we view the death of Christ has having infinite value then sufficiency is undoubted but that does not mean Christ died for everyone's sins but for those He appointed to receive the forgiveness of sins. The scapegoat was for Israel and no other nation.
We should stop using terminology that is out of place. Jesus came to save the lost, they were lost in Adam, not all men are lost, only the sheep. The sacrifice of atonement was for Israel and for no other nation.

He may have underestimated, but it does seem clear that most Calvinists--by a wide margin--are infralapsarian.

Russell. Calvin was supralapsarian, By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death. (John Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion Book 3 chapter 21:5.)


john.

 

[russell55]

Sorry, double post.

[ March 21, 2006, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: russell55 ]

 

[russell55]

Calvin was supralapsarian

There is disagreement on that. There are quotes from him that could go both ways. Sort of like the limited atonement issue.

That statement you quoted doesn't necessarily mean Calvin was supra. A supra could make that statement, but so could an infra.

The supra/infra question has to do with the logical order of the decrees. Did God decide to create people, and only on the basis of his decision to create, did he assign eternal destinies, without considering that they would be fallen? If that's what Calvin believed, then he was supra.

But if Calvin believed that God decided to create, and the basis of that decision to create, he decided to permit the fall, and then considering that all not-yet-created humans would be fallen, he decided to ordain some to life, and others to damnation, then he would be infra.

Either way, all people are not actually created on equal terms. Some are created destined to eternal life, and some to damnation.

 

[Paul33]

Originally posted by russell55:
Paul 33,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I have to say, though, that supralapsarianism, in itself, seems to be an extreme position and misrepresentation of the Biblical record.

I agree, but I don't think it's heretical, and hypercalvinism is. BTW, Lorraine Boettner said that supralapsarians make up only around 1% of all 5 point Calvinists. He may have underestimated, but it does seem clear that most Calvinists--by a wide margin--are infralapsarian. </font>[/QUOTE]Agreed.

I believe that I am a Calvinist who believes in universal atonement. Therefore, I am a Sublapsarian.

1. The decree to create human beings.
2. The decree to permit the fall.
3. The decree to provide salvation sufficient for all (the lifted up Christ).
4. The decree to save some and pass over others.

 

[Paul33]

The payment can be provided for and yet still be rejected. This is what Calvin meant when he spoke of those who rejected Christ as being "doubly culpable."

 

[russell55]

Therefore, I am a Sublapsarian.

I think you would more properly be called Amyraldian. Sublapsarian is the same thing as infralapsarianism, although I know there is one systematic theology--can't remember which--that calls amyraldianism "sublapsarianism".

But that's wrong. The prefixes "sub" and "infra" refer to the placement of the decree of the fall in regards the decree of election, and they both mean that the decree of election comes directly under or below the decree of the fall.

Here's an article I wrote for the World Magazine Theology Weblog on the order of the decrees of Amyraldianism, in case you're interested: The Ordered Lists of Salvation: God's Eternal Decrees 5.

I haven't completed the articles on infra and supra yet, but I am knee deep in the research.

And have you checked Calvins's commentary on 1 John 2:2? That throws a bit of a monkey-wrench in the idea he believed in general atonement.

 

[johnp.]

Thanks Russell & Paul, I'm working on it.

The payment can be provided for and yet still be rejected.

No, the atonement reconciles by itself not by our acceptance of it. It's a deal between Two Others. Since there is an infinite worth in the death of Christ He bought the whole of mankind and paid the debts of those chosen. He died for His people but bought mankind. Are we trying to find the reason for God's choice? No reason for being saved but sin for being sent to that place?

What about his last will Russell?

...I humbly implore of him to grant me to be so washed and purified by the blood of that sovereign Redeemer, sited for the sins of the human race...
http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/calvinism/calvin_will.html

I was going to quote: Nevertheless a full discussion of the scope of the atonement is not found in Calvin’s writings, and the assessment of his position in this area has been varied.

Certain other Reformed theologians, contemporaries of Calvin or flourishing in the late sixteenth or the beginning of the seventeenth century, expressed a clear endorsement of definite atonement: e.g. Peter Martyr, H. Zanchius, T. Beza, J. Piscator, W. Ames, R. Abbot.5 As far as we know, they did not assert that they were conscious of differing with Calvin on this score, nor did Calvin take issue in writing with any of those who formulated the view during his life-time.
http://www.apuritansmind.com/Arminianism/NicoleRogerCalvinsLimitedAtonement.htm

Which is a good argument but for the fact of his last will saying: sited for the sins of the human race...

Maybe this can keep everyone on the fence because I think Calvin would have felt compelled to correct others in error.

Either way, all people are not actually created on equal terms. Some are created destined to eternal life, and some to damnation.

All are created destined. I didn't know Calvin had not written on this in a certain manner. My logic concluded that since Esau was sent to Hell before he had done good or bad then good and bad were not part of the equation in determining destination but it was God's Sovereign choice in election. I would say that man goes to Hell because God chose that for Him on the basis of His free will and sin introduced later. To say that God determined to prosecute some in not giving mercy then the reason they go to Hell is their fault and no longer God's Sovereignty in doing as He pleases without excuse and blaming us for it. I had taken his statement and ran with it. I assumed he would have concluded the same! Shocking a? Making Calvin in my own image? sited for the sins of the human race... That's wrong.

I'm working out what you are saying, be patient please.

1 John 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

An atoning sacrifice atones. Simple as that isn't it? But Eli's household had no atonement for it. Therefore, I swore to the house of Eli, `The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.' " 1 Sam 3:14. Might be that Calvin was so assurred by scriptural evidence that he thought it self-evident that a limited atonement was proved.

john.

 

[russell55]

My logic concluded that since Esau was sent to Hell before he had done good or bad then good and bad were not part of the equation in determining destination but it was God's Sovereign choice in election.

Here's a quick way to determine whether you (or someone else) is supralapsarian: Ask this question: When God decided that some would be eternally in hell, was he considering their sin as the reason for sending them there?

If you say no, God's initial decision to send some to hell is grounded in God's will alone and not their sin, then you are supra.

If you say yes, God was considering people as sinners when he decided to save some sinners and damn other sinners, then you are infra. If you believe God already had decided upon a just cause for damnation before he decided to send people to hell, then you are infra.

Another way to possibly tell whether someone is infra or supra is in the language they use regarding the decree of election. (This is not fool-proof by any means, since no one writes and thinks carefully all the time.) If they see the decree of election as to eternal life (or heaven) and hell, then they may be supralapsarian. If they see election as to salvation and damnation, then they may be infra, simply because the words salvation and damnation assume sin: sin to be saved from, and sin as just grounds for damnation.

[ March 21, 2006, 07:06 PM: Message edited by: russell55 ]

 

[russell55]

Hmmm......I've made a mistake in that last post, and it didn't hit me until I was too late to edit.

If they see the decree of election as to eternal life (or heaven) and hell, then they may be supralapsarian. If they see election as to salvation and damnation, then they may be infra, simply because the words salvation and damnation assume sin: sin to be saved from, and sin as just grounds for damnation.

Take the words "hell" and "damnation" out of that sentence. Most supras and infra (both) see election as dealing with eternal life or salvation only. Most would agree that people are not elected to hell or damnation.

Don't know what got into me there to make a mistake like that! I guess that's proof of my own statement that

no one writes and thinks carefully all the time

 

[johnp.]

Hello Russell.

Most would agree that people are not elected to hell or damnation.

Rom 9:11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls--she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

in order that God's purpose in election might stand: Esau I hated."

They would err then? ...God's initial decision to send some to hell is grounded in God's will alone... That is my belief. I read some stuff on supra/infra and object to the word 'permit' as damaging to His Sovereignty.

john.