Pristine Grace
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 80

Thread: John Calvin on 1 John 2:2

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Warrington, UK
    Posts
    488
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on 1 John 2:2

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert R. Higby
    Martin:
    Atonement wrought, which he often calls redemption.

    I believe that this needs to be challenged 'however'. If you are right (which I seriously doubt), Calvin needs to be taken to task for proclaiming a paradoxical redemption which ends up sending the subjects of such redemption to hell. But I firmly believe that Calvin always talks about Christ's achieved redemption in terms of the elect, not the reprobate.
    Well Bill, quotes can be supplied from Calvin but what's the point? You post him because you think he supports your doctrine but if that can be proved wrong (which it can - if it hasn't already) you'll just denounce him. Either what he says carries weight and should be given earnest consideration or you don't care what he says. Double-standards methinks.

    Martin

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,849
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on 1 John 2:2

    2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.


    I have also looked at this with caution.

    It would not make sense if you used elect in place of our. It would read as thus:

    2 And he is the propitiation for the elects sins: and not for the elects only, but also for the sins of the elect world.


    So I do not know what to make of this way of looking at it
    But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
    GALATIANS 5:22

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Holland, Michigan
    Posts
    1,835
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on 1 John 2:2

    Quote Originally Posted by lionovjudah
    2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.


    I have also looked at this with caution.

    It would not make sense if you used elect in place of our. It would read as thus:

    2 And he is the propitiation for the elects sins: and not for the elects only, but also for the sins of the elect world.


    So I do not know what to make of this way of looking at it
    This is the same response I gave Martin in the thread "Reprobates".

    YES!

    (This is adapted for this thread)

    But if Jesus died for the propitiation of the sins of the whole world, and "world" means "every human being that ever existed" then something is wrong here. See below.

    (Don't tell me that the the same principle of "love and hate" does not apply to the propitiation of the whole world... don't tell me is not pertinent!)

    But Jesus tells God that "he does not pray for the world" in John 17; - Did Jesus fail to include in his prayer those whom God loves or those whom He died for?

    That we "are not of the world" in John 17 (which must mean that God does not love "we")

    And for us "not to love the world" in 1 John 2:15 - would God tells us NOT to love something He does love and that Jesus propitiated for?

    And, in the same verse, that if we "love the world, the Love of God is not in him" - then loving that which God loves would indicate that God love is not in us? Does that make sense?

    So, to ascribe any meaning to the word "world" in John 3:16 other than that the "world" meant to be the "others" beside the Jewish world is poor biblical interpretation. Not even Arminius interpreted that way the word "world" in John 3:16.

    I could also cite that the Bible teaches that in fact the love for the world is diametrically opposed to loving God; in fact, loving the world is enmity against God; that said verse is in the book that many here consider a Holy Canonical Book, or the book of James... So, then, do you love the world and are an enemy of God?

    If the "world" means "every human being that ever existed", and God says that those who love it are His enemies, then God would be an enemy of Himself! That's hard for me to understand and I will not call it ludicrous because I don't want to be accused as before of being harsh... For the same reason I will not call interpreting the "world" as "every human being that ever existed" and that God loves them all, and then tells us that loving this "world" is a demonstration that His love is not in us and that we are His enemies and Himself is His enemy for loving the world, is a demonstration that the purveyors of the "God loves the entire world" and a few of the major deviations from Sovereign Grace REALLY BELIEVE IN A MANIC DEPRESSIVE god. Again, I will not say this because I don't want to bring back the memories of past discussions on the issue... oitherwise I would have said it!

    I am still alive and kicking... and biting. A pitful servant... but a pitbull guardian...

    By the way, in the last few months, I actually got worse... I think I was nicer before!

    Milt
    Grace Ambassador
    A pitiful servant of God; a pitbull guardian of the message of Grace

    My pledge to other members:
    A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. Prov 15:1
    A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver - Prov. 25:11

  4. #24
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,672
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    73
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    119
    Thanked in
    65 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on 1 John 2:2

    If Calvin contradicted himself in other passages, it is still clear from this commentary on 1 John 2:2 that he viewed universal atonement as a monstrous doctrine. To me that is the only issue here, whether we are honest in what he said on this passage or not. Those who twist it to say what he denied are not honest and that's all I have to say 'bout that!
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

  5. #25
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,672
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    73
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    119
    Thanked in
    65 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on 1 John 2:2

    Lion: It would not make sense if you used elect in place of our. It would read as thus: And he is the propitiation for the elects sins: and not for the elects only, but also for the sins of the elect world.

    So I do not know what to make of this way of looking at it


    This is exactly how Calvin interpreted it, that the whole world is that of the elect--so if you don't believe he made sense that is certainly exercising your freedom to disagree. I will re-post for those who are confused:

    Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; 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.
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    306
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on 1 John 2:2

    I will offer my attempt to reconcile John's words http://www.bakersbread.org/index.php?id=10
    John's first epistle is written to a Jewish audience.
    1Jo 2:7 Beloved, I am not writing a new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning; the old commandment is the word which you have heard.
    Here John indicates that his audience has had the old commandment from the beginning - the Mosaic law.

    Furthermore, Paul indicates that John is an Apostle to the "circumcised" - he is an Apostle to the Jews as his letter indicates.
    Gal 2:9 and recognizing the grace that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, so that we might go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
    Knowing that John's audience is Jewish will help to reconcile the meaning of 1 John 2:2.
    1Jo 2:1-2 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; (2) and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
    We find a parallel to this passage in the Gospel According to John:
    Joh 11:51-52 Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, (52) and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.
    Notice the striking similarity of thought. The Lord Jesus is said to have died for "our sins" and "the nation", yet not for "ours only" and "for the nation only", but for the "whole world" and "the children of God who are scattered abroad". When we combine this with the knowledge that John's first epistle was written to the Jews, we can rightly understand that he was not making a case for Christ's having died for every single soul, but rather that Christ was a propitiation for Jewish sins, and not for Jewish sins only, but for those of the chosen Gentiles as well.

    Surely we understand Christ's propitiation to have been successful -- meaning the Father will not punish again for propitiated sins. Therefore, anyone for whom Christ was a propitiation will be with Him in heaven. For this reason, the Arminian cannot use this passage to support their theology without either 1) denying the power of Christ's propitiation or 2) becoming a Universalist.

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Warrington, UK
    Posts
    488
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on 1 John 2:2

    Quote Originally Posted by lionovjudah
    Are we trying to determine what Calvin meant here? Was he in line with Amarault? In some areas it appears yes, in others it appears no.
    Hi Joe,

    Can you provide an example where you think Amyraut was not in-line with Calvin?

    Martin

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Warrington, UK
    Posts
    488
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on 1 John 2:2

    Quote Originally Posted by GraceAmbassador
    If the "world" means "every human being that ever existed", and God says that those who love it are His enemies, then God would be an enemy of Himself! That's hard for me to understand and I will not call it ludicrous because I don't want to be accused as before of being harsh... For the same reason I will not call interpreting the "world" as "every human being that ever existed" and that God loves them all, and then tells us that loving this "world" is a demonstration that His love is not in us and that we are His enemies and Himself is His enemy for loving the world, is a demonstration that the purveyors of the "God loves the entire world" and a few of the major deviations from Sovereign Grace REALLY BELIEVE IN A MANIC DEPRESSIVE god. Again, I will not say this because I don't want to bring back the memories of past discussions on the issue... oitherwise I would have said it!
    Ah, but you did say it though didn't you. I don't know what you intended to accomplish by the use of that technique but in similar vein then I will say nothing about your sloppy exegesis, resulting equivocation of terms, simplistic, reductionist categories or extensive reliance upon false dichotomies. No, I won't even mention it - and, in view of your closing warning to me, it would appear that there will no point in further discussion between us:
    Quote Originally Posted by GraceAmbassador
    I am still alive and kicking... and biting. A pitful servant... but a pitbull guardian...

    By the way, in the last few months, I actually got worse... I think I was nicer before!
    I will only discuss with those wish to engage in genuine discussion. Thus I will not respond to you any further unless you demonstrate such a desire. My goal is to glorify God and edify His people and I do not think this purpose would be served if I were to continue in discussion with you. I cannot speak for you but I do know that if you were to continue posting in this way I fear that I may be tempted to sin in my response.

    Martin

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    OR
    Posts
    1,064
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on 1 John 2:2

    An examination of all of the instances of the use of the word 'world (kosmos)' in all the Johannine writings is necessary to come to a good understanding of what John meant by 'world (kosmos)' in John 1:29. Similar usages of the word ‘world’ that deniers of Limited Atonement use are John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2.

    What they do is isolate these scriptures from the rest of scripture and eisegete their own vain philosophy into the text.

    For example John 3:16 reads:

    "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

    They say, "See it says world, not elect!" without even considering the context. Christ is speaking to Nicodemus, a Jew. Jews were 'Gods elect' his 'chosen race.' So it would indeed have come as a shock to Nicodemus that Gentiles would be recipients of God's favor. Christ in John chapter 3 unloads on Nicodemus several 'new' teachings namely Regeneration (being born from above), and the scope of election extending beyond the Nation of Israel. So what Christ was saying was that God's love spans the globe, it's no longer isolated to the Israelite people. Nor does it mean that God loves every single person that has ever existed. The meaning of John's usage is best described in Rev 5:9:

    And they sing a new song, saying, Worthy art thou to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou was slain, and didst purchase unto God with thy blood men of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation,

    The same interpretation applies to 1 John 2:2. Use www.biblegateway.com or a concordance and do a word search in the Johannine writings on the word ‘world.’ You will find there are MANY different uses for that word.

    A few examples:

    John 17:9 - I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me; for they are thine.

    1 John 2:15 - Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

    It is obvious by just these two verses--and trust me if you do what I suggested on the word search you will find many more--that we must let the context interpret our understanding of the words that are used in scripture.


  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    OR
    Posts
    1,064
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on 1 John 2:2

    The above post was from the 'Nature of Atonement' thread, and the same for the following. This is my suggested 'q' and 'a' for the subject of atonement:

    Here are some other helpful tools for deniers of Limited Atonement:

    Ask them what foreknew in Rom 8:29 means:

    For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

    There are a few answers you can anticipate getting:

    1.) "God looked into the future to see who would believe and that’s what 'foreknew' means."

    You can respond: "So God had to look to something other than Himself to GAIN knowledge? So are you saying that God was not all knowing at some point? "

    This is Open Theism and is Heresy.

    2.) "God just knew what choice individuals would make."

    You can respond: "So you are saying that God created people He knew wouldn't believe and sends them to Hell? So God still created them for Hell."

    You can also say: “So since God new what choices we would make, why would He send His Son to die for the sins of the people He already knows are going reject The Christ?"

    Joes post above is also a good tool because if Christ already paid (redeemed, atoned, propitiated, satisfied) for the sins of every person that has ever existed then how is it that non-believers will pay for their sin too?

    Christ saved His sheep on the cross. We do not believe in a fictitious salvation. We believe in a Savior who actually SAVED His sheep on the cross, not that He only made salvation possible and it is up to man to save themselves.


  11. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Warrington, UK
    Posts
    488
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on 1 John 2:2

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert R. Higby
    If Calvin contradicted himself in other passages, it is still clear from this commentary on 1 John 2:2 that he viewed universal atonement as a monstrous doctrine. To me that is the only issue here, whether we are honest in what he said on this passage or not. Those who twist it to say what he denied are not honest and that's all I have to say 'bout that!
    Well Bob, I shall overlook and forgive you for the clear implication that you are calling me dishonest. Neither shall I question your honesty in return but I shall simply refer you back to my previous posts which this post, very clearly, completely fails to take into account and thus is shown to be of no effect. You are not really engaging with what I am saying so why bother? As I said to Milt: I will only discuss with those wish to engage in genuine discussion.

    Martin

  12. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,849
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on 1 John 2:2

    Quote Originally Posted by Skeuos Eleos
    Hi Joe,

    Can you provide an example where you think Amyraut was not in-line with Calvin?

    Martin
    For one, Calvin in this example does express his thoughts that offering salvation to the reprobate is an abusurdity. But in another statement from his commentary on 1 Timothy he states thus:

    And thus we see in few words, what Saint Paul’s meaning is, to wit, that for so much as God will have his grace to be known to all the world, and has commanded his gospel to be preached to all creatures, we must as much as lieth in us, procure the salvation of all them

    And why so? For Jesus Christ is not the Saviour of three or four, but he offers himself to all


    The qualifies later by saying:

    let us not leave off to pray for all men in general, for Saint Paul shows us, that God will have all men to be saved, that is to say of all people and nations.


    From what my limited mind can take, reading all of this gets quite confusing at times. It appears that Calvin does speak of a general free offer for all. I have read other threads here where Charles makes the distinction of offre in Latin or French can mean present. But the outcome is still the same.

    SO did Amarault confess the same? I need to read more to be certain. Did Amarault believe God sincerely offers salvation to the reprobate? Again I do not know. Calvin says no. But then speaks of some general offer.
    But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
    GALATIANS 5:22

  13. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Warrington, UK
    Posts
    488
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on 1 John 2:2

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Hughes
    An examination of all of the instances of the use of the word 'world (kosmos)' in all the Johannine writings is necessary to come to a good understanding of what John meant by 'world (kosmos)' in John 1:29. Similar usages of the word ‘world’ that deniers of Limited Atonement use are John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2.
    Why do you mention John 1:29 first as though that is primarily what you are responding to? Has this post been copied from elsewhere?

    You are correct that this is an important thing to do although it doesn't of course negate the need to take account of the context first and, thus contextual exegesis should determine whether or not in fact the usage of kosmos in the verses you cite is indeed similar. Words have a range of meanings and it is the context that determines the meaning in a particular verse not its meaning in some other verse. Indeed, as you acknowledge later, kosmos has a range of meanings in the Johanine writings and thus context must determine the meaning for any one verse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Hughes
    What they do is isolate these scriptures from the rest of scripture and eisegete their own vain philosophy into the text.
    I am saddened to see that you appear to have succumbed to the 5solas way of 'discussing' things. This charge I naturally refute and make the same charge in return. Of course, that got us nowhere.

    Perhaps we need a point of clarification here. It would appear that you are attacking a straw man. Who are these "deniers of limited atonement" and what is it they deny?

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Hughes
    For example John 3:16 reads:

    snip

    ... we must let the context interpret our understanding of the words that are used in scripture.
    Indeed we must but you presuppose your exegesis is correct. Anyway, I suggest that these verses are beyond the scope of a discussion about what Calvin said on 1 John 2:2. A separate thread might be more appropriate - if you are really prepared to consider how your interpretation might be flawed and if you're really prepared to change it - otherwise there'd be no point would there?

    Martin

  14. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Warrington, UK
    Posts
    488
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on 1 John 2:2

    Quote Originally Posted by lionovjudah
    For one, Calvin in this example does express his thoughts that offering salvation to the reprobate is an abusurdity.
    Calvin speaks of 'extending' you say 'offering'. How do you know you are correct to assume you are speaking of the same thing?

    Quote Originally Posted by lionovjudah
    But in another statement from his commentary on 1 Timothy he states thus:

    snip
    You appear by this statement to be thinking that Calvin is contradicting himself. If so, how do you know that he is rather than you misunderstanding what he is saying?

    In any event this doesn't answer my question. You said that: "In some areas" it appears that Calvin was not "in line with Amyraut". To prove this you would have to produce a quote by Calvin where he says one thing and a quote by Amyraut where he says something that contradicts it. Have you seen anything written by Amyraut? I'm not suggestnig that they did agree on absolutely everything (even though Amyraut did produce an extensive piece containing quote after quote after quote from Calvin to show how his theology was in agreement with him) but I am asking on what basis can you claim that they differed?

    Quote Originally Posted by lionovjudah
    SO did Amarault confess the same?
    Same as what exactly?

    Quote Originally Posted by lionovjudah
    I need to read more to be certain. Did Amarault believe God sincerely offers salvation to the reprobate?
    I believe he did although I've read only a miniscule fraction of his work.

    Quote Originally Posted by lionovjudah
    Again I do not know. Calvin says no.
    Actually Calvin says yes, time after time after time elsewhere. Calvin is not contradicting himself in this one (and only) passage. He is using different categories than you are. Go back and read my first post and see if you can see why there is no contradiction.

    Hope that helps,
    Martin

  15. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,849
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on 1 John 2:2

    Quote Originally Posted by Skeuos Eleos
    Calvin speaks of 'extending' you say 'offering'. How do you know you are correct to assume you are speaking of the same thing?
    I do nto believe it is assuming Martin. Is it not the same idea? How can extending differ from offer or present? Anyway, there is no differnce and as seen in the quote i provide again below JC uses offer not extend. Therefore we can conclude he used both terms synonomously. We have no other choice than to conclude that



    You appear by this statement to be thinking that Calvin is contradicting himself. If so, how do you know that he is rather than you misunderstanding what he is saying?
    First and foremost, I find Calvin a hard read. Perhaps that is just me. Calvin is more clear in some areas than others. Perhaps it is a language barrier. I posted snippets from him to clarify what I speak. I will again post form Calvins own mouth.

    And why so? For Jesus Christ is not the Saviour of three or four, but he offers himself to all

    One can surmise Calvin is speaking of a general offer here. What else can we think?

    Then I posted this from JC:

    let us not leave off to pray for all men in general, for Saint Paul shows us, that God will have all men to be saved, that is to say of all people and nations.

    Here he qualifies what he means by all. I am assuming nothig here, it is very plain.


    Quote Originally Posted by martin
    In any event this doesn't answer my question. You said that: "In some areas" it appears that Calvin was not "in line with Amyraut". To prove this you would have to produce a quote by Calvin where he says one thing and a quote by Amyraut where he says something that contradicts it. Have you seen anything written by Amyraut? I'm not suggestnig that they did agree on absolutely everything (even though Amyraut did produce an extensive piece containing quote after quote after quote from Calvin to show how his theology was in agreement with him) but I am asking on what basis can you claim that they differed?
    Martin, I stated that I have not read much af MA. That is why I asked you the question below. Calvin did not believe, from Bobs quote, that Salvation was extended to the reprobate. I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretense extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself. Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation.
    They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ 1 suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; 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.

    THis cannot be any more clear can it?



    Quote Originally Posted by martin
    Actually Calvin says yes, time after time after time elsewhere. Calvin is not contradicting himself in this one (and only) passage. He is using different categories than you are. Go back and read my first post and see if you can see why there is no contradiction.
    I have read your post, and I do not understand what the terms mean in relation to the atonement Martin. I have yet to find one example where JC clearly states that salvation is extended/offered to the reprobate. And if we are sticking with the verse at hand, he emphatically says no as highlighted above.

    ]Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage. Is this the part where you believe Calvin espouses some universal aspect of the atonement for the reprobate? I do nto believe he admits anythign other than what has been said is true, meaning that some people have said and have this idea.

    MArtin, the problem arises because MA believed that Gods only purose in the death of Christ was to make salvation possible for all men if they believed. ITs only purpose was the establish this hypothetical covenant of some sort. This is the biggest difference with MA and JC. Calvin most assuredly confessed a definate atonement in intent and sufficiency.

    In my estimation, MA was a good thinker and an honest guy. He was and is more calvinistic than calvinists this day. He attempted to be antischolastic, but became a rationalist on this point. He understanding of the decrees as election coming after Christs provision is definately not Calvin. I believe he was just compramising with the semi pelagians of his day, and ended up opposed to Calvins intent on the cross of Christ.

    The definate truth of the Gospel proclamation is not dependant upon some universal aspect of the atonement. MA believe this was necessary to make the offer sincere, but it in no way is true. And Calvin also agreed on this point.

    Just try doing this with any other thought in Calvins mind Martin.:

    The Lords supper is sufficient for all but effecint for only the elect."

    Perseverance of the saints is sufficient for all but efficient for only the elect."

    Gods predestination is sufficient for all but efficient for only the elect.

    The only universal aspect of Christ is He is the King of the whole world. He is the savior of the whole world, meaning there is no other name one can be saved by. He is King of All, both elect and reprobate.

    I will do more research on the matter and find opposing quotes from Calvin and the MA school. There are similarities which cannot be denied. But definate atonement is nto one of them. Specifically in regards to any benefits wrought/applied or whatever word one wants to use on the death of Christ towards the reprobate.


    Good to see you Martin
    But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
    GALATIANS 5:22

  16. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Warrington, UK
    Posts
    488
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on 1 John 2:2

    Quote Originally Posted by lionovjudah
    I do nto believe it is assuming Martin. Is it not the same idea? How can extending differ from offer or present? Anyway, there is no differnce and as seen in the quote i provide again below JC uses offer not extend. Therefore we can conclude he used both terms synonomously. We have no other choice than to conclude that
    Because the difference is more than just whether two words mean the same thing but about the thoughts that you and JC are trying to convey. The quote you provide is saying something entirely different than the original quote on 1 john 2:2 hence it does not follow that he uses extend and offer to mean the same thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by lionovjudah
    First and foremost, I find Calvin a hard read. Perhaps that is just me. Calvin is more clear in some areas than others. Perhaps it is a language barrier.
    Well there is something in this - use of language does change over time but there's more. We must remember that we all come with presuppositions and terms that we use and categories in which we think. Just as we all should seek to avoid reading what we want into a particular verse of scripture so we must be careful not to read our own ways of thinking into other authors - particular when they are from another time and a whole 'nother way of thinking. So, just as we sometimes use scripture to interpret scripture so we also may need to look elsewhere within Calvin to understand Calvin.

    Quote Originally Posted by lionovjudah
    snip

    Here he qualifies what he means by all. I am assuming nothig here, it is very plain.
    Indeed it is. Even more so when it is compared with countless others of his writings.

    Quote Originally Posted by lionovjudah
    Martin, I stated that I have not read much af MA. That is why I asked you the question below.
    That's fine but what you seem to be missing is that you didn't originally ask a question, you made a statement - that, in effect, "in some areas" it appears that Calvin was not "in line with Amyraut" and I was asking if you can prove where the two were out of line - yet you have only posted Calvin. Posting Calvin doesn't prove that he's out of line with Amyraut since you have assumed but not made explicit what you think Amyraut said. To prove it you would have to say "Calvin said this and Amyraut said that - look how they differ". Do you see my point? Anyway, don't worry about trying to find Amyraut quotes to back it up (there's virtually zilch on the internet anyway) - rather, the issue is that I don't think you are understanding Calvin correctly and that, after all, is what this thread is about. Once you understand Calvin, the basis upon which you think there is a difference between him and Amyraut will disappear. (Although, I suspect that your understanding of Amyraut will be different to mine too!).

    Quote Originally Posted by lionovjudah
    Calvin did not believe, from Bobs quote, that Salvation was extended to the reprobate.
    Sure that is what he said, but what does he mean by it? and how does he reconcile it with statements such as the following. That is what you need to think about.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Calvin
    Christ offered Himself as a Victim for the salvation of the human race.
    Comment on Matthew 26:14-20

    The sacrifice [of Christ] was ordained by the eternal decree of God, to expiate the sins of the world.
    Comment on Matthew 26:24

    [Christ was] burdened with the sins of the whole world
    Comment on Matthew 26:39

    Christ...won acquittal for the whole human race.
    Comment on Matthew 27:12

    "Not willing that any should perish." So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost. But the order is to be noticed, that God is ready to receive all to repentance, so that none may perish; for in these words the way and manner of obtaining salvation is pointed out. Every one of us, therefore, who is desirous of salvation, must learn to enter in by this way. But it may be asked, If God wishes none to perish, why is it that so many do perish? To this my answer is, that no mention is here made of the hidden purpose of God, according to which the reprobate are doomed to their own ruin, but only of his will as made known to us in the gospel. For God there stretches forth his hand without a difference to all, but lays hold only of those, to lead them to himself, whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world.
    Comment on 2 Peter 3:9

    And again, has not our Lord Jesus Christ redeemed men’s souls: true it is that the effect of his death comes not to the whole world: Nevertheless for as much as it is not in us too discern between the righteous and the sinners that go to destruction, but that Jesus Christ has suffered his death and passion as well for them as for us: therefore it behoves us to labour to bring every man to salvation that the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ made be available to them.
    Sermons on Job, p 548
    You then re-posted Calvin and emboldened a few phrases and said "THis cannot be any more clear can it?" What is interesting here is that the emboldened phrases presumably represent what you think are the key points. What you are missing is the phrases that Doug emboldened in the note of his that Brandan posted. You need to understand what they mean because the effect of them is that the parts that you have emboldened cannot mean what I think you are taking them to mean. My first post attempted to explain that a little more.

    Quote Originally Posted by lionovjudah
    I have read your post, and I do not understand what the terms mean in relation to the atonement Martin. I have yet to find one example where JC clearly states that salvation is extended/offered to the reprobate.
    Well the quotes cited above implicitly do that and then there's:
    Quote Originally Posted by John Calvin
    Who taketh away the sin of the world. He uses the word sin in the singular number, for any kind of iniquity; as if he had said, that every kind of unrighteousness which alienates men from God is taken away by Christ. And when he says, the sin of the world, he extends this favor indiscriminately to the whole human race; that the Jews might not think that he had been sent to them alone. But hence we infer that the whole world is involved in the same condemnation; and that as all men without exception are guilty of unrighteousness before God, they need to be reconciled to him. John the Baptist, therefore, by speaking generally of the sin of the world, intended to impress upon us the conviction of our own misery, and to exhort us to seek the remedy. Now our duty is, to embrace the benefit which is offered to all, that each of us may be convinced that there is nothing to hinder him from obtaining reconciliation in Christ, provided that he comes to him by the guidance of faith. Besides, he lays down but one method of taking away sins.
    Comment on John 1:29.
    You see the same words are used but it is what is being extended that is different.

    Quote Originally Posted by lionovjudah
    "Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage." Is this the part where you believe Calvin espouses some universal aspect of the atonement for the reprobate?
    Yes
    Quote Originally Posted by lionovjudah
    I do nto believe he admits anythign other than what has been said is true, meaning that some people have said and have this idea.
    You are missing it. When you say "this idea" what idea? Let me put it another way: what exactly does Calvin agree ('allow') is true?

    Quote Originally Posted by lionovjudah
    MArtin, the problem arises because MA believed that Gods only purose in the death of Christ was to make salvation possible for all men if they believed.
    Not true. Amyraut was a 'dualist' - just as was Calvin:
    Quote Originally Posted by Moyse Amyraut
    ‘Jesus Christ died for all men sufficiently, but for the elect only effectually: and that consequentially his intention was to die for all men in respect of the sufficiency of his satisfaction, but for the elect only in respect of its quickening and saving virtue and efficacy; which is to say, that Christ's will was that the sacrifice of his cross should be of an infinite price and value, and most abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world; yet nevertheless the efficacy of his death appertains only unto the elect; ... for this was the most free counsel and gracious purpose both of God the Father, in giving his Son for the salvation of mankind, and of the Lord Jesus Christ, in suffering the pains of death, that the efficacy thereof should particularly belong unto all the elect, and to them only’ (Amyraut at the synod of Alencon cited in John Quick‘s Synodicon in Gallia Reformata).
    Note the similarity of what he says with both calvin and the canons of Dort.

    Quote Originally Posted by lionovjudah
    ITs only purpose was the establish this hypothetical covenant of some sort. This is the biggest difference with MA and JC. Calvin most assuredly confessed a definate atonement in intent and sufficiency.
    Not strictly true and begging the very question that the original Calvin quote was attempting to prove. In any event, Amyraut can be seen to be just as 'particular' as Calvin. But the problem is your use of the word 'atonement' - you use it as if it can have only one meaning whereas, as I have already said, for Calvin and Amyraut there is atonement accomplished (at the cross) and atonement applied (regeneration and faith). As you can see from some of the quotes above, in some sense Calvin clearly sees the intent and sufficiency as being for the whole world and in some other sense as for the church, i.e. both universal and definite. The key is to understand these different senses.

    Quote Originally Posted by lionovjudah
    In my estimation, MA was a good thinker and an honest guy. He was and is more calvinistic than calvinists this day. He attempted to be antischolastic,
    Agree so far

    Quote Originally Posted by lionovjudah
    ... but became a rationalist on this point. He understanding of the decrees as election coming after Christs provision is definately not Calvin.
    Not so at all. In fact Amyraut was strongly against any form of ordered decretalism - as I believe also was Calvin:
    Quote Originally Posted by Amyraut
    "I am well aware that Calvin has said may things relating to the "impulsive" causes of the decress of God, but as to their order I do not see that he has ever said a word"
    From his Defense, cited in Calvinism and the Amyraut heresy, Armstrong, Brian G.
    Armstrong explains how Amyraut goes on to say that this order in the decrees is a matter in which the "secrets are so profound, and the abyss so impossible to explore, that whoever will undertake to know them would necessarily be swallowed up by them or will necessarily remain eternally deluded as being in a completely inexplicable labyrinth".

    Quote Originally Posted by lionovjudah
    I believe he was just compramising with the semi pelagians of his day
    Well that's a charge that others have made before but I've never seen any evidence to back it up...

    Quote Originally Posted by lionovjudah
    ... and ended up opposed to Calvins intent on the cross of Christ.
    I hope I've shown otherwise. You might want to check out some more Calvin quotes here:
    http://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/calvine.htm

    Quote Originally Posted by lionovjudah
    The definate truth of the Gospel proclamation is not dependant upon some universal aspect of the atonement. MA believe this was necessary to make the offer sincere, but it in no way is true.
    Well obviously I disagree here.

    Quote Originally Posted by lionovjudah
    Just try doing this with any other thought in Calvins mind Martin.:

    The Lords supper is sufficient for all but effecint for only the elect."

    Perseverance of the saints is sufficient for all but efficient for only the elect."

    Gods predestination is sufficient for all but efficient for only the elect.
    I'm afraid you lost me here.

    Quote Originally Posted by lionovjudah
    I will do more research on the matter and find opposing quotes from Calvin and the MA school.
    Looking forward to seeing them ... but, since I don't think they exist (regarding the doctrine of the atonement at least), I won't hold my breath.

    Grace and peace to you,
    Martin

  17. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Holland, Michigan
    Posts
    1,835
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on 1 John 2:2

    Ah, but you did say it though didn't you. I don't know what you intended to accomplish by the use of that technique but in similar vein then I will say nothing about your sloppy exegesis, resulting equivocation of terms, simplistic, reductionist categories or extensive reliance upon false dichotomies. No, I won't even mention it - and, in view of your closing warning to me, it would appear that there will no point in further discussion between us:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GraceAmbassador
    I am still alive and kicking... and biting. A pitful servant... but a pitbull guardian...

    By the way, in the last few months, I actually got worse... I think I was nicer before!


    I will only discuss with those wish to engage in genuine discussion. Thus I will not respond to you any further unless you demonstrate such a desire. My goal is to glorify God and edify His people and I do not think this purpose would be served if I were to continue in discussion with you. I cannot speak for you but I do know that if you were to continue posting in this way I fear that I may be tempted to sin in my response.
    Martin:

    How can you call genuine discussion if all you do is to repeat and tripeat what the historic reformers have said (and you implicitly admit in the other thread)? I don't call it discussion! My concepts may be whatever they are, but they came with personal study and a lot of personal loss. Can you say anything that is cardiac to you or that is from your own conclusion for a change? You know, it is not sinful to dissent of the majority opinion...

    You keep repeating words and terms that you borrowed, or are parroting from, someone else call it discussion? I love you personally BROTHER, but I think you are backtracking... But who am I anyway? Keep backtracking and you will end up being classified wint those in the text where Jesus say that "if it would be possible, even the elect would be deceived"!

    Now, read your response and see who is attacking arguments rather than dealing with them...

    Blessings to you and yours!

    I am not one bit surprised that you prefer not to discuss with me. It is all right if you ignore me as well. That does not change whatever good I think of you for our past relationship. I just really think you are in the backsliding mode. By experience, and I hope to God that you make my experience null and void as far as yourself, I have seen people beginning to give room for "two wills" "God loves all the world" and other deceptions and later all they believe is that God is a little "god" who does not see the future, does not intervene in the lives of humans, a distant and aloof God of whom we should be terrified of, who is no different than the devil. I hope, again, that my experience means nothing in your life.

    Milt
    Grace Ambassador
    A pitiful servant of God; a pitbull guardian of the message of Grace

    My pledge to other members:
    A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. Prov 15:1
    A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver - Prov. 25:11

  18. #38
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,672
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    73
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    119
    Thanked in
    65 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on 1 John 2:2

    This is not mainly an issue of Calvin's teaching. Where he spoke and interpreted incorrectly (in terms of general atonement), he taught doctrines of devils as sure and certain as I myself have taught doctrines of devils at times in my life! Many of us are persuaded that the doctrine of general atonement is anti-gospel and a doctrine of devils. We also believe that definite atonement is integral to the true gospel and that the apostolic gospel is not complete unless it is confessed. The ultimate issue here is progressive illumination and the fact that the Reformation did not end with Luther or Calvin. In the conviciton of many of us (based on the scriptures), the end teaching of the true gospel is definite atonement and a lot of other crucial doctrines that go along with it. We will simply have to agree to disagree with those who believe the doctrines of Amyraut, since the notion of a bipolar God loving and redeeming people into eternal hell is too horrible of a though to entertain for even a moment--in light of the superior revelation of grace! This is my last post in this thread, as it would be pointless to say anything else. We have to admit when we have true presuppositional differences and that is the end of it.
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

  19. #39
    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 1 John 2:2

    I'm convinced that Calvin was not trying to affiliate himself either with Amyraut or Dort since neither existed yet just as Calvin was not trying to argue in the realm of the post/amil debate since the debate was not raging yet. Calvin says in 1 John 2:2 that although this passage is not teaching this particular doctrine that Christ's death was sufficient for all men but efficient for the elect. Much depends upon what is meant by "sufficient." Is he speaking of hypothetical universalism? Or is he teaching that if God had so desired Christ's death would have been able to expiate the sins of the whole world without an additional sacrifice or more suffering? Or neither? I really don't think he was even dealing with this debate which was not raging yet.
    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

  20. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,849
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on 1 John 2:2

    martin, in the list you provided, I still admit it gets confisuing at times.

    #83 & #84, #84 say something which would clarify in my estimation:

    83. This is His wondrous love towards the human race, that He desires all men to be saved, and is prepared to bring even the perishing to safety...It could be asked here, if God does not want any to perish, why do so many in fact perish? My reply is that no mention is made here of the secret decree of God by which the wicked are doomed to their own ruin, but only of His loving-kindness as it is made known to us in the Gospel. There God stretches out His hand to all alike, but He only grasps those (in such a way as to lead to Himself) whom He has chosen before the foundation of the world. Comment on 2 Peter 3:9

    85. Georgius thinks he argues very acutely when he says: Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world; and hence those who wish to exclude the reprobate from participation in Christ must place them outside the world. For this, the common solution does not avail, that Christ suffered sufficiently for all, but efficaciously only for the elect. By this great absurdity, this monk has sought applause in his own fraternity, but it has no weight with me. Wherever the faithful are dispersed throughout the world, John [1 Jn. 2:2] extends to them the expiation wrought by Christ's death. But this does not alter the fact that the reprobate are mixed up with the elect in the world. It is incontestable that Christ came for the expiation of the sins of the whole world. But the solution lies close at hand, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but should have eternal life (Jn. 3:15). For the present question is not how great the power of Christ is or what efficacy it has in itself, but to whom He gives Himself to be enjoyed. If possession lies in faith and faith emanates from the Spirit of adoption, it follows that only he is reckoned in the number of God's children who will be a partaker of Christ. The evangelist John sets forth the office of Christ as nothing else than by His death to gather the children of God into one (Jn. 11:52). Hence, we conclude that, though reconciliation is offered to all through Him, yet the benefit is peculiar to the elect, that they may be gathered into the society of life. However, while I say it is offered to all, I do not mean that this embassy, by which on Paul's testimony (2 Cor. 5:18) God reconciles the world to Himself, reaches to all, but that it is not sealed indiscriminately on the hearts of all to whom it comes so as to be effectual. Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, pp. 148-9

    Very interesting read Martin. Thank you for the link.
    But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
    GALATIANS 5:22

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit
    By Geoffrey in forum Predestinarian Doctrine Archive
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-03-06, 09:38 PM
  2. Nephalim
    By lionovjudah in forum General Discussion Archive
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 10-19-05, 08:13 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
  •