Pristine Grace
Page 2 of 23 FirstFirst ... 212 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 454

Thread: John Calvin on John 3:16

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    593
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on John 3:16

    Jan, Calvin may not have in plain words said "justification is a work of man", but his statements overall betray his error. He may have said "God justifies" but he made the ground or determining factor of justification something within man - God-wrough faith in Christ.

    Jan, you asked about "the object of our faith". Well, I cannot answer for us both, only for me myself. The object of my faith is not my faith, but someone and something greater than so.

    Then you ask about "the instrument of justification". Well, the New Testament does not have the word "instrument" in connection with the noun "justification" or the verb "justified". So to make a definite dogma involving "instrument" or "instrumentality" like some have seemingly done is in some sense to go beyond "what is written". The closest one finds to "instrument" when it comes to justification is the preposition DIA in the Greek text. And why not the "instrumental dative" in the GNT.

    I did a check on the KJV text, and in the NT found "justification" thrice (3x), only once was the preposition for instrumentality, DIA, used in connection with it, in Rom. 4:25. But here the construction was DIA plus accusative ("on account of") so it had nothing to do with instrumentality. The other two which were moot verses in this matter were Rom. 5:16 and 18.

    Then I did a search on the form "justified", concentrating only on Paul. In KJV I found "justified" in connection with DIA in Rom. 3:24. KJV rightly here renders "through". But if rendered "through the instrumentality of" then the instrumentality is what follows - "the redemption that is in Christ Jesus". The next verse where I find "justified" in connection with DIA is Gal. 2:16. KJV renders it "by", but if rendered "through the instrumentality of" then what follows would be the instrumentality - "the faith of Jesus Christ". The noun for "faith" is here the form "pisteôs", and can be likewise rendered "faithfulness". Mark well it says not "faith IN Jesus Christ". These two were the only two occasions were the form "justified" and the instrumental preposition DIA meet, and not once is the "instrument" something within a sinner.

    Then the same form, "justified", in connection with the simple dative form (not EN plus dative). In some contexts this form is referred to as "instrumental dative". The first occasion I found was Rom. 3:28. Versions, including KJV, usually have the wording "justified by faith", the "by" expressing the force of the dative case of "pistei". This is probably the favourite verse of those that believe and maintain "justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone". First, it does not say "justified by faith IN CHRIST", simply "justified by faith". They do not get the notion of "faith in Christ" from the immediate context, but must import it from some other place, whatever that may be, whether Luther or Calvin or Spurgeon etc. Secondly, those that maintain a man becomes justified before God by or through or because of faith in Christ usually maintain that this justification is a one time occurence. But, in their drawing support for this their doctrine from Rom. 3:28 ("justified by faith") they are not prudent or honest enough to state that the tense of the verb "justified" here is not aorist in the Greek text(s), but present tense. Aorist is the "tense of completed action", aka "point action tense", the tense used to picture or describe a one time action. But mark well that here that the present tense is used by Paul, therefore the "justified" he here talks about cannot be the same thing as the one time happening of "justified" the Solafideite would want this verse to talk about. The form of the verb in the original tongue is infinitive present passive. In an interlinear which seeks to distinguish between aorist and present it looks like this - "to be being justified" (NOT "to be justified"). This verse is thus seen to teach a progressive "justified"/"justification", and that "by faith". Now I would ask the Solafideite, what is your explanation? What does Paul mean?
    The second occasion of the form "justified" in connection with simple dative case was Titus 3:7. KJV renders the dative with "by". If rendered "by the instrumentality of" then the instrument would be what follows next - "his grace". Mark well NOT "justified by the instrumentality of faith in Christ".

    Then I found DIA in connection with the form "(shall) justify" in one verse, Rom. 3:30. Here also "faith" occurs. KJV says "shall justify...through faith". Not "through faith IN Christ". Mark well that the Greek has an article which KJV does not translate, i.e. lit. "shall justify...through THE faith". What is there in the preceding or surrounding context which makes a man think this means "shall justify through faith in Christ"? Any takers?

    Then the form "justifieth". It is found twice in KJV, Rom. 4:5 and 8:33. In both of these it is God who "justifieth".

    Now I would ask the Solafideite, on what or which verses do you base your doctrine that subjective God-given Christ-ward faith/trust is an "instrument" of justification before God the Judge of all men?


    harald


    P.S.

    Another verse I come to think of where "justify" is the issue is Rom. 5:19, KJV says "shall many be made righteous". The "made" is more literally "constituted" (Gr. katastathęsontai). In this verse also DIA is used by Paul, KJV renders it "by". Or why not - "... and through the instrumentality of the obedience of the One shall the many be constituted righteous"

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Wild West Arizona
    Posts
    344
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on John 3:16

    Sorry harald but what a bunch of dribble. It is FAITH in something that justifies. The something has to be a something or you could claim that just having "faith" in anything at all including faith that the chair you are sitting on will hold you up etc etc etc is sufficent faith.

    What is this about justification being an ongoing thing? You are either declared Justified or you are not. It isn't something that grows.

    The object of MY FAITH is CHRIST. You couldn't answer that? So tell me what is the meaning of "something greater"? The sun, the universe or a force in the universe? May the force be with you.

    Amazing that an unscholarly person such as myself can see through your silliness. Sorry to be so insulting but you have truly insulted me. By the way I do believe that the AUTHORS of the BIBLE are not the same as general mankind. Unless of course you don't believe that the Word is in fact Inspired or "GOD BREATHED". We are all INCLUDING YOU DEAR SIR subject to our fallen minds when reading God's Word and will BRING INTO IT OUR SINFULNESS!!!! Therefore no one is perfect INCLUDING YOU. Luther got some issues wrong, Calvin got some issues wrong, Sprugeon got more issues wrong hahaha and I for sure have some issues wrong. This why I hope to be somewhat "teachable" and willing to look at scripture for what it says and not what I want it to say. I firmly believe that Calvin approached scripture in such a manner and I also believe that he was an instrument used by God to help the church to move away from the Fallen Whore of Babylon called the RCC.

    After reading the institutes I have actually grown in my understanding of God's Word. It certainly isn't what is being taught in mainstream evangelical christianity. For this my heart breaks because "the church" has again started creeping back to the man made religion of the RCC while still calling itself protestant. I see it in even the "nominal" calvinist camps. Oh well that is another topic .

    Hmmmm hopefully you can futher explain yourself to me.

    Take care, Jan
    It is what it is

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on John 3:16

    harald:

    Quote Originally Posted by harald
    Then you ask about "the instrument of justification". Well, the New Testament does not have the word "instrument" in connection with the noun "justification" or the verb "justified". So to make a definite dogma involving "instrument" or "instrumentality" like some have seemingly done is in some sense to go beyond "what is written". The closest one finds to "instrument" when it comes to justification is the preposition DIA in the Greek text.
    It is not going beyond what is written if that is the function of the construction in Greek. Translation and interpretation is not done merely by finding the closest one word equivalent.

    Could you please provide an explanation of Romans 3:25?

    Romans 3:25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,

    Also, Gal. 3:6?

    Galatians 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

    Eph. 3:17?

    Ephesians 3:17 that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love,
    For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on John 3:16

    Quote Originally Posted by wildboar
    harald:


    It is not going beyond what is written if that is the function of the construction in Greek. Translation and interpretation is not done merely by finding the closest one word equivalent.

    Could you please provide an explanation of Romans 3:25?

    Romans 3:25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,...
    also continuing on in vv. 28-30:

    Romans 3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith (dative with no preposition) apart from works of the Law...30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by (EK) faith and the uncircumcised through (DIA) faith is one.

    and in 4:5:

    Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,

    and Gal 3:8, 24:

    Gal 3:8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by (EK) faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU"...24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by (EK) faith.
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Wild West Arizona
    Posts
    344
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on John 3:16

    I went back to my Calvin Commentaries to see if what is being charged against Calvin is accurate. Guess what I found .... That the quote by Disciple is grossly taken out of context. SURPRISE SUPRISE ... Let's look at the entire section shall we then let's decide if Calvin in fact believed what is being asserted. Here is the first section that the sentence was lifted from:





    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.


    Now lets see how Mr Calvin qualifies himself ....


    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, too, is displayed a wonderful effect of faith; for by it we receive Christ such as he is given to us by the Father — that is, as having freed us from the condemnation of eternal death, and made us heirs of eternal life, because, by the sacrifice of his death, he has atoned for our sins, that nothing may prevent God from acknowledging us as his sons. Since, therefore, faith embraces Christ, with the efficacy of his death and the fruit of his resurrection, we need not wonder if by it we obtain likewise the life of Christ.


    As I would hope all of you can see that Calvin did NOT teach universal atonement nor did he teach that faith is something conditional from the man.
    If you bother to read the section above this area you will clearly see that he believed our only hope is in Christ ...

    16. For God so loved the world. Christ opens up the first cause, and, as it were, the source of our salvation, and he does so, that no doubt may remain; for our minds cannot find calm repose, until we arrive at the unmerited love of God. As the whole matter of our salvation must not be sought any where else than in Christ, so we must see whence Christ came to us, and why he was offered to be our Savior. 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, and wishes that they should not perish. And this order ought to be carefully observed; for such is the wicked ambition which belongs to our nature, that when the question relates to the origin of our salvation, we quickly form diabolical imaginations about our own merits.


    Accordingly, we imagine that God is reconciled to us, because he has reckoned us worthy that he should look upon us. But Scripture everywhere extols his pure and unmingled mercy, which sets aside all merits. And the words of Christ mean nothing else, when he declares the cause to be in the love of God. For if we wish to ascend higher, the Spirit shuts the door by the mouth of Paul, when he informs us that this love was founded on the purpose of his will, (<490105>Ephesians 1:5.) And, indeed, it is very evident that Christ spoke in this manner, in order to draw away men from the contemplation of themselves to look at the mercy of God alone. Nor does he say that God was moved to deliver us, because he perceived in us something that was worthy of so excellent a blessing, but ascribes the glory of our deliverance entirely to his love. And this is still more clear 105 from what follows; for he adds, that God gave his Son to men, that they may not perish. Hence it follows that, until Christ bestow his aid in rescuing the lost, all are destined to eternal destruction. This is also demonstrated by Paul from a consideration of the time; for he loved us while we were still enemies by sin, (<450508>Romans 5:8, 10.) And, indeed, where sin reigns, we shall find nothing but the wrath of God, which draws death along with it. It is mercy, therefore, that reconciles us to God, that he may likewise restore us to life.


    This mode of expression, however, may appear to be at variance with many passages of Scripture, which lay in Christ the first foundation of the love of God to us, and show that out of him we are hated by God. But we ought to remember — what I have already stated — that the secret love with which the Heavenly Father loved us in himself is higher than all other causes; but that the grace which he wishes to be made known to us, and by which we are excited to the hope of salvation, commences with the reconciliation which was procured through Christ. For since he necessarily hates sin, how shall we believe that we are loved by him, until atonement has been made for those sins on account of which he is justly offended at us? Thus, the love of Christ must intervene for the purpose of reconciling God to us, before we have any experience of his fatherly kindness. But as we are first informed that God, because he loved us, gave his Son to die for us, so it is immediately added, that it is Christ alone on whom, strictly speaking, faith ought to look.

    Anyways .... For what it is worth haha Calvin did not teach nor did he ever believe in Universal Atonement nor that man is merited in anyway to receive the "Love of God". Nor does he suggest that Christ's atonement is efficiently applied to all of mankind. Nor does he say that GOD LOVES all of mankind indiscriminatly.






    Yet again my two cents worth .



    I hope to hear what you all think of taking someone out of context. This is why I am suspect of what Harald put together. You can pull just about any sentence out of context and conclude just about anything about anyone!!!! Very dangereous and many of "cults" have done it to God's Word throughout time. I know because I was raised in one.
    Thanks again .... Jan

    It is what it is

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on John 3:16

    doctr of grace:

    I'm not certain that this tells us that Calvin did not teach an unlimited atonement here. It seems that Calvin is teaching that Christ died for all men but that this atonement does not provide them any benefit unless God regenerates them. This is similar to the teachings of Lutheran theology. For an interesting article on Calvin's teaching on the atonement which argues that he did teach a limited atonement you might want to read John Calvin’s View of the Extent of the Atonement by Dr. Roger Nicole
    For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on John 3:16

    Quote Originally Posted by doctr of grace
    I went back to my Calvin Commentaries to see if what is being charged against Calvin is accurate. Guess what I found .... That the quote by Disciple is grossly taken out of context. SURPRISE SUPRISE ...
    Now lets see how Mr Calvin qualifies himself ....

    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, too, is displayed a wonderful effect of faith; for by it we receive Christ such as he is given to us by the Father — that is, as having freed us from the condemnation of eternal death, and made us heirs of eternal life, because, by the sacrifice of his death, he has atoned for our sins, that nothing may prevent God from acknowledging us as his sons. Since, therefore, faith embraces Christ, with the efficacy of his death and the fruit of his resurrection, we need not wonder if by it we obtain likewise the life of Christ.



    As I would hope all of you can see that Calvin did NOT teach universal atonement nor did he teach that faith is something conditional from the man.
    If you bother to read the section above this area you will clearly see that he believed our only hope is in Christ ...
    i certainly hope you're not accusing me of deliberately taking the quote out of context to make calvin say something that he did not. number one, if you look back at the quote, i provided that which you underlined (i.e., calvin's qualification). number two, i provided the reference so that you could go look for yourself. number three, i believe that i provided enough of the reference to get a gist of what he was talking about (qualifiers and all) and be able to comment. therefore, if you are making an accusation, i think you need to kindly retract it, with all due respect.

    Quote Originally Posted by doctr of grace
    Anyways .... For what it is worth haha Calvin did not teach nor did he ever believe in Universal Atonement nor that man is merited in anyway to receive the "Love of God". Nor does he suggest that Christ's atonement is efficiently applied to all of mankind. Nor does he say that GOD LOVES all of mankind indiscriminatly.
    thanks for your thoughts. just to clarify, i did not assert anything in my post. i posted the quote for everyone to comment on (without any comment of my own). the words can speak for themselves. do not read anything into my motive or interpretation of what calvin wrote. out of curiosity, where did you get all of that you were railing against? in other words, who said any of what you are objecting to calvin saying above?
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Wild West Arizona
    Posts
    344
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on John 3:16

    Disciple ... I retract any form of accusing you of taking Calvin out of context. Sorry about the misunderstanding and I appreciate that you clarified your position and you are right of course you didnt make any claim what so ever. It was what was posted that got me going. Having been confronted with the John 3:16 commentary awhile back I remember reading on and seeing that Calvin did qualify his statement (at least somewhat).

    Harald is the one I have the main issue with and the list of snipets he has put together. Unlike you his list has no references.

    I have just seen time and time again people saying Calvin taught this or Calvin said that and more often then not they have misread his intent or injected there own bias or agenda into his words or even worse grossly taken his writing out of context. We can all be guilty of bringing presuppositions to the table with any reader whether positive or negative. I am certainly guilty of it myself.

    Please accept my apology disciple.

    Thanks, Jan
    It is what it is

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Wild West Arizona
    Posts
    344
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on John 3:16

    Quote Originally Posted by wildboar
    doctr of grace:

    I'm not certain that this tells us that Calvin did not teach an unlimited atonement here. It seems that Calvin is teaching that Christ died for all men but that this atonement does not provide them any benefit unless God regenerates them. This is similar to the teachings of Lutheran theology. For an interesting article on Calvin's teaching on the atonement which argues that he did teach a limited atonement you might want to read John Calvin’s View of the Extent of the Atonement by Dr. Roger Nicole
    thanks for the article
    It is what it is

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on John 3:16

    Quote Originally Posted by doctr of grace
    Disciple ... I retract any form of accusing you of taking Calvin out of context...Please accept my apology disciple.
    thank you. of course i accept your apology. no harm, no foul.
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  11. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on John 3:16

    Quote Originally Posted by wildboar
    However, we should keep in mind that Calvin developed his doctrine over time. There is a gradual progression one can see if Calvin's writings are traced on issues such as a general love God has for all people which is denied in his later writings.
    do you know when this was written? is this an early writing? do you know of any books that trace and catalogue this gradual progression in his theology? and is there explicit evidence that he retracted this particular interpretation of his? thanks!
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  12. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on John 3:16

    do you know when this was written? is this an early writing? do you know of any books that trace and catalogue this gradual progression in his theology? and is there explicit evidence that he retracted this particular interpretation of his? thanks!
    I'll have to look into this more. I don't recall ever seeing Calvin issue a retraction of his interpretation of John 3:16. However, I know that this commentary was written sometime prior to his sermons on election and reprobation and those sermons contained in Calvin's Calvinism where he denies some of the things that he says this verse teaches though he does not refer to this verse itself.
    For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine

  13. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Wild West Arizona
    Posts
    344
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on John 3:16

    I have heard and this maybe is a case of Calvin being misquoted that sometime in his 40's Calvin said he hadn't changed his mind on any of his theology. I am not even sure where that comes from though so it maybe inaccurate.

    Perhaps I am really slow here but what exactly is it that seems to be the problem? Is it that he (Calvin) states that all men are to be presented the gospel indiscriminatly? Or that he used the ever evil word "universally"? The more I read his passage on John 3:16 and even on the entire discourse of Jesus and Nicodemus I am not seeing a real major problem with Calvins explanation. 1 Tim 2:4 is much harder to take as well as the 1 John 2:2 verse as far as a "universal" effect of the cross on mankind. These two verses are much more wide open for a "universal" idea of atonement yet if you read Calvin's commentary on both these passages he defends predestination and election very vigorously. So I believe if Calvin really believed in unlimited atonement it would show up on these two passages in his commentary. Yet it doesn't.

    Thanks for the discussion .... Jan
    It is what it is

  14. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on John 3:16

    doct of grace:

    The question revolves around whether John Calvin in his commentary on John 3:16 taught something similar to Amyraut who taught hypothetical universalism in the 17th century, a system which came to be known as Amyraldianism. It teaches that Christ savingly died for all men but that only the elect receive the benefits through faith.

    Many modern "Calvinists" fall into this same trap when they say that Christ's death was efficient for all but sufficient only for the elect. Many teach that the Canons actually say this. This is what they actually say:

    CAN 2:3
    The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin; and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.
    What the fathers were speaking of was the death of Christ considered in itself apart from God's decree, apart from the intent of Christ, and apart from the fact that Christ actually represented in His death only the elect. They were saying that if it had been Christ's intent to save all men His death would have been sufficient to save everyone in the world and any other worlds a person could think up. There was nothing lacking in the sacrifice. The death was of infinite value. But Christ went to the cross with the sins of His people, not the sins of every person who ever lived.
    For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine

  15. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on John 3:16

    Quote Originally Posted by wildboar
    Many modern "Calvinists" fall into this same trap when they say that Christ's death was efficient for all but sufficient only for the elect. Many teach that the Canons actually say this.
    i think you meant "sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect." this is a phrase that i've heard originates with the twelfth century scholastics, particularly in the writings of peter lombard. from what i understand, they meant by this that Christ actually expiated/made propitiation for the sins of all humanity (it is in reality sufficient and available for all humanity, though conditionally...read the link below by hodge), but that it is only applied to the elect (its effective only for the elect because only they meet the conditions, namely believing). the argument has been that this is what calvin believed as he affirmed this saying in 1 John 2:2 (he just didn't believe that this was what 1 John 2:2 was saying).

    from what i understand, lower and moderate calvinists taught what hodge is explaining here:

    http://www.dabar.org/Theology/Hodge/...III/P3_C08.htm

    from what i've read (though i have not read all of their works so this is second hand information), other advocates of this understanading are people like luther, dabney, shedd, baxter, boston, bunyan, bavink, kuiper, fuller, carey, robertson, strong, etc. (some important opposers to this were turretin, owen, gill, etc.). a guy named david ponter is creating no small storm in reformed circles as he is researching this very topic. you can find one of his papers here (he used to have a whole site dedicated to his works called "david ponter papers" but it is no longer available):

    http://www.sounddoctrine.net/LIBRARY...fer_gospel.htm

    Quote Originally Posted by wildboar
    What the fathers were speaking of was the death of Christ considered in itself apart from God's decree, apart from the intent of Christ, and apart from the fact that Christ actually represented in His death only the elect. They were saying that if it had been Christ's intent to save all men His death would have been sufficient to save everyone in the world and any other worlds a person could think up. There was nothing lacking in the sacrifice. The death was of infinite value. But Christ went to the cross with the sins of His people, not the sins of every person who ever lived.
    what canons/fathers are you talking about. i don't know what you are referencing here...do you mean the canons of dordt?
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  16. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Wild West Arizona
    Posts
    344
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on John 3:16

    hmmmm much to think on!!!!

    I believe that is from the Canons of Dordt.

    Thanks for the further references and I am just a silly girl trying to get it straight. If greater minds than mine can't sort it out I sometimes wonder why bother hahaha.
    It is what it is

  17. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on John 3:16

    Quote Originally Posted by disciple
    i think you meant "sufficient for all but efficient only for the elect."
    Yes I reversed it....I guess in English word matter does order

    from what i understand, they meant by this that Christ actually expiated/made propitiation for the sins of all humanity (it is in reality sufficient and available for all humanity, though conditionally...read the link below by hodge), but that it is only applied to the elect (its effective only for the elect because only they meet the conditions, namely believing).
    Hodge wrote many things contradicting himself in regards to both the "offer" and the "atonement". You may wish to read this article concerning the history of the "offer" in later Presbyterian thought: http://www.prca.org/current/Free%20Offer/chapter7.htm The Bible never speaks of faith as a condition by which we are saved. Even some more conservative Lutherans (WELS) have seen the folly in speaking of faith as a condition by which we are saved.

    from what i've read (though i have not read all of their works so this is second hand information), other advocates of this understanading are people like luther, dabney, shedd, baxter, boston, bunyan, bavink, kuiper, fuller, carey, robertson, strong, etc. (some important opposers to this were turretin, owen, gill, etc.). a guy named david ponter is creating no small storm in reformed circles as he is researching this very topic. you can find one of his papers here (he used to have a whole site dedicated to his works called "david ponter papers" but it is no longer available):
    The article you cited does not say that Kuiper was a low Calvinist, but that his views were closer to those of Amyraut, which I most certainly agree. I think this is the real problem. That which you are referring to as high Calvinism is really low Calvinism and that which you are referring to as low Calvinism is not Calvinism at all. Baxter was by no means a Calvinist. Robertson was a syncretist. Luther said different things during his life about the atonement. I don't think Bavinck is saying what you think he is saying. I don't have time right now to go through all of these.

    What the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confessions represent are low Calvinism. They are Calvinistic documents written from an infralapsarian perspective. They represent a minimum of what a person must believe in order to be considered a Calvinist. Double predestination and belief that Christ only intended to save His church are things which a person must believe in order to be considered a Calvinist.
    For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine

  18. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on John 3:16

    Quote Originally Posted by wildboar
    The article you cited does not say that Kuiper was a low Calvinist, but that his views were closer to those of Amyraut, which I most certainly agree.
    i don't think i called any of them low calvinists but rather lower and moderate (as opposed to high).

    Quote Originally Posted by wildboar
    I think this is the real problem. That which you are referring to as high Calvinism is really low Calvinism and that which you are referring to as low Calvinism is not Calvinism at all. Baxter was by no means a Calvinist. Robertson was a syncretist. Luther said different things during his life about the atonement. I don't think Bavinck is saying what you think he is saying. I don't have time right now to go through all of these.
    as i said, i was only passing on what i've read about these folks. i said that i hadn't read all the works of these people. so i'm not going to argue about any of this.

    Quote Originally Posted by wildboar
    What the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confessions represent are low Calvinism. They are Calvinistic documents written from an infralapsarian perspective. They represent a minimum of what a person must believe in order to be considered a Calvinist. Double predestination and belief that Christ only intended to save His church are things which a person must believe in order to be considered a Calvinist.
    perhaps you could tell me what your understanding is of low, moderate, and high (and perhaps hyper) calvinist. because i think we are working with different definitions at this time.
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  19. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on John 3:16

    Quote Originally Posted by wildboar
    What the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confessions represent are low Calvinism. They are Calvinistic documents written from an infralapsarian perspective. They represent a minimum of what a person must believe in order to be considered a Calvinist. Double predestination and belief that Christ only intended to save His church are things which a person must believe in order to be considered a Calvinist.
    according to whom? whose making the definition? and who can authoritatively define what exactly a calvinist is?

    from what i understand, there is a tremendous amount of variation within the calvinist camp (of what can properly be called a calvinist, historically speaking). the problem i've seen in my experience and reading is that everyone thinks that their particular brand of calvinism is the only one that can properly be called calvinist. also, in my experience, it is fruitless to discuss and argue about this because everyone has already decided that they (and their camp) are the standard. so i really don't want to go there.

    anyway, i've been listening to the following sermons (75 messages!) and they've been very instructional in this matter.

    http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.as...ED%2E%5EDaniel

    also, out of curiosity, why are you calling the framers of the canons of dordt fathers? i've always understood the fathers as a reference to the early church or apostolic fathers.
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  20. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on John 3:16

    according to whom? whose making the definition? and who can authoritatively define what exactly a calvinist is?

    from what i understand, there is a tremendous amount of variation within the calvinist camp (of what can properly be called a calvinist, historically speaking). the problem i've seen in my experience and reading is that everyone thinks that their particular brand of calvinism is the only one that can properly be called calvinist.
    In order to be a Calvinist/Reformed you have to at least agree soteriologically with the Calvinist/Reformed churches as stated in the Calvinist/Reformed confessions. There is variation. You can accept or deny eternal justification. You can be an infraplapsarian or supralapsarian. You can't deny the particular atonement and still be reformed. Reformed theology and the Scriptures teach that when Christ went to the cross He intended to save the church. Amyraut taught that His intent was to save everyone but that the Holy Ghost only gives faith to some and faith is necessary to make the atonement efficient. That is not reformed.

    Richard Baxter taught justification by faith and the new law. This may be accepted by the apostate reformed churches today, but in reality it's Roman Catholic Dogma.
    also, out of curiosity, why are you calling the framers of the canons of dordt fathers? i've always understood the fathers as a reference to the early church or apostolic fathers.
    They are spiritual fathers of the reformed churches.

    It should be noted that faith as a condition of salvation in the orthodox reformed theologians is not equivalent to much of how faith as a condition is being used today. Turretin writes:

    Faith has the relation of a condition in this covenant … as it is the means and instrument of our union with Christ (Institutes, vol. 2, p. 187; emphasis added).
    David Ponter himself starts from a neo-orthodox framework and so accepts common grace and the well-meant offer and then trys to read these doctrines into the older writers, however he does accomplish his task as he states:

    To demonstrate that the modern Neo-Amyraldian theology of Grace, as espoused by such as R.B. Kuiper, and others of late, is not truly representative of older Reformed theology of Grace.
    For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine

Page 2 of 23 FirstFirst ... 212 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. When To Give Up
    By MCoving in forum General Discussion Archive
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 06-05-06, 01:23 PM
  2. Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit
    By Geoffrey in forum Predestinarian Doctrine Archive
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-03-06, 09:38 PM
  3. chat
    By lionovjudah in forum General Discussion Archive
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-27-05, 11:27 AM
  4. PREACHING STYLES
    By lionovjudah in forum General Discussion Archive
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 05-04-05, 10:33 AM
  5. Call to the Faithful
    By Susie3 in forum Old Miscellaneous Archive
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-20-02, 12:24 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •