Pristine Grace
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 4
Results 61 to 80 of 80

Thread: John Calvin on 1 John 2:2

  1. #61
    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

    Hey folks, so many groundless assertions, hidden assumptions and pointless emotional rhetoric and so little time to expose it all! I’m not going to be able to keep up with you all. The whole style of discussion is going to have to change or we’re gonna get nowhere – assuming anybody actually wants to earnestly discuss anything raised anyway. The evidence so far suggests not. I mean, is there any point in me saying anything? Your minds are all made up right? It don't matter what Calvin or any other noted theologian says never mind what I say. It seems to be of no concern to any of you that you're in a minority, that greater minds have studied these things and come to different conclusions. All of these things count for nothing with folk here so is there any point in discussion? Should anyone think here "yeah, that's right Martin we don't care about those things, all we care about is what scripture says" don't fool yourself coz what you're really saying to yourself is that you know better than all those people and that's a dangerous thing to do - to say nothing of the pressupositions that cloud your reading of scriptures.

    But let me be clear on one thing: no-one has offered a single argument containing any substance that will carry any weight whatsoever with anyone who does not hold to your presuppositions.

    I was invited back to participate in discussions because, as Brandan said: "we need those who differ from us. We're not interested in winning any arguments - only that the elect would see the truth through antithesis from whichever side that might teach it." that is fine but it is not what is happening here. The truth is found in the Word of God - they will only see the truth when we discuss the Word.

    I will try to expose some of the problems I am having in the next couple of posts but then I will need some evidence that there is any point in continuing.

    Martin

  2. #62
    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

    Milt,

    Quote Originally Posted by GraceAmbassador
    All Reformed folk who believe in "universal calling", "free offer of the gospel", and the TWO WILLS OF GOD, which is connected as siamese sisters to "common grace" and are grounded in the "sufficiency, efficiency" fallacy.
    This makes no sense whatsoever. It is both incomplete and ambiguous:

    1. What is "universal calling" and how it is any different to "free offer of the gospel"?

    2. Is common grace just a “Siamese sister” of the two wills of God theory or of all the things you list? Your grammatical construction suggests the former (i.e. use of ‘is connected’ rather than ‘are connected’) but I suspect you intended the latter. Yes?

    3. What is meant by “Siamese sister”? That those who believe in the free offer will also believe in common grace? So, is common grace really just another item in the list?

    4. Are all items in the list "grounded" in the "sufficiency, efficiency" formula or just common grace?

    5. What does grounded mean anyway? Derived from? So in other words you're asserting that folk had to come up with sufficiency before they could come up with common grace etc?

    6. Most importantly of all, what is the actual proposition you are putting forward? All reformed folk who believe x, y, z, do what? Is it trying to say that all reformed folk who believe those things will also believe in the "sufficiency, efficiency" formula? Or is it just trying to say that all those things are grounded in the "sufficiency, efficiency" formula?

    7. Is it saying the same as this:
    Quote Originally Posted by GraceAmbassador
    So, most reformed folk who believe: "Free offer, universal call, common grace", God's two wills, will argue in favor of "efficience/sufficiency".
    If it is, why did ‘all’ become ‘most’???

    Or is it saying the same as this:
    Quote Originally Posted by GraceAmbassador
    The sufficiency/efficiency doctrine has one purpose alone:
    To be the foundation to dilute the Limited Atonement teaching and to be the cornerstone for:
    1. Free offer of the Gospel
    2. Common grace
    3. Universalism
    4. God's two wills
    Actually that’s two purposes: to "dilute the Limited Atonement teaching and to be the cornerstone for ..."

    And where’s your evidence? These are just unsubstantiated assertions.

    If we’re just gonna trade assertions, here’s a couple of counter assertions that I think are more convincing than yours:

    1. Actually a lot of reformed folk believe in all those things and yet have never heard of the sufficiency, efficiency formula so how does that make it the grounds or foundation for those doctrines or how can this prove what the purpose of the “sufficiency/efficiency” formula is if they’ve never even heard of it?

    2. The majority of reformed people uphold the free offer, two wills and common grace and yet positively deny any universal sufficiency. Surely you would agree that it is statistically true that most reformed people hold to a strict definite atonement? So your assertion that these other doctrines are grounded in the “sufficiency/efficiency” formula is ‘groundless’ as well as pointless.

    So, I suppose we could say that just as you believe that repetition is the mother of teaching so I believe that ambiguity, imprecision, assumptions and unproven assertions are the enemy of understanding.

    Anyway what’s the point of these assertions anyway? Where does it get us? Who cares whether most reformed folk hold to the “sufficiency/efficiency” formula? Who cares whether its the foundation for those other doctrines or not? Surely what matters is what does scripture say? That’s the only thing worth discussing – we’ve already established that what Calvin says carries no weight with folks here.

    A couple more things:
    Quote Originally Posted by GraceAmbassador
    the "Free offer of the Gospel" argument has NO ground without stating that Jesus' sacrifice is "sufficient for one and only efficient for the other"; otherwise, how can they say that God offers freely something to someone that He did not provide? One must believe that God provided a sacrifice for the reprobrate before they can believe that He offers such a sacrifice. Otherwise their argument is insane.
    Well at least your logic is sound on this point! - although insane is not the word I would use. And, as I have already said, the reality is that the majority of reformed people do just this: they hold to a free offer and yet reject any universal expiation on which it can be based. So, at least my position satisfies your quest for a logically reconcilable system on this one point (and yeah, I recognise that you will say it is illogical at a thousand others!).

    Quote Originally Posted by GraceAmbassador
    NO MARTIN! I believe that God already judged, NOT WILL JUDGE, because they do not believe because He programmed them not to believe in the past. Please check John 3:18.
    Well, your implied interpretation of John 3:18 cannot be substantiated from the text. Condemnation is clearly the result of not believing.

    Romans 2:5 and numerous other scriptures are against your position.

    Soli Deo Gloria,
    Martin

  3. #63
    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 Ugly_Gaunt_Cow
    If the atonement is sufficient for all men, but only efficient for the elect we are in the midst of a dilemma.

    If salvation can be extended to all men,
    But who says it can? Nobody has asserted that in this thread so far that I can see. Of course it depends upon what you mean by 'salvation' and 'extended' but everything else you say hangs off the assumptions you are making here and so carries no force.

    Martin

  4. #64
    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: What are you looking to discuss? Dont throw the baby out with the water here. Obviously some posts have addressed the issue, all cannot be misguided could they? You have provided quotes from Calvin that clearly express his words, but not his complete thoughts. We can specualte all day what he meant. Again, in some of the quotes he does make Christs death in intrinsic value capable fo covering all the sins of all men ever born or would be born. But then in other areas does not extend this to those He never intended to save. Calvin did not think that Christ died for Peter or Paul in the same manner as He died for Judas. I personally have to dismiss this thought. Now that said, I am also at odds with many here. I believe scripture does speak of some offer. But I do not believe there has to be any universal aspect to the atonement because of an offer. Again AMrtin, you and the 4 pointers will have to answer this question: Does God ever reject those who do come to Him? Scripture says no. "I will in no way cast out those who come to me."

    For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me; and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

    I love this scripture. Did the Father give Him Judas? Did the Father give Him Cain? Notice the 2 aspects of this verse, one of the only verses that says "this is the will of God" Both aspects are true.

    Christs death is sufficient for all, not all men, but all manner of sin. Every single one (Except blaspheming the Holy Ghost).

    SO Christs death was sufficient for all who see Him and believes in Him. THe rub is the reprobate will never see Him nor believe in Him, nor ever want to. This is the problem. The reprobate will NEVER believe in Him. Because if a man does, he is elect.

    Suffient for all would mean His death is sufficient for billions if purposed. He would not have had to bleed one more drop or stay on the cross one more second to atone for more people. The call of the Word, the preaching of the word is to unite people to the Lord. And all who come, He will not cast out, and all who come, His death was sufficient for

    William Cunningham (1805-1861) gives insight into potential misunderstanding of the Reformed position, which serves as a call for care in using the “sufficient for all, efficient for the elect” terminology.
    “A distinction was generally employed by the schoolmen, which has often been adverted to in this discussion, and which it may be proper to explain. They were accustomed to say, that Christ died sufficiently for all men, and efficaciously for the elect, -- sufficientur pro omnibus, efficaciter pro electis. Some orthodox divines, who wrote before the extent of the atonement had been made the subject of full, formal, and elaborate discussion, and Calvin himself among the rest, -- admitted the truth of this scholastic position. But after controversy had thrown its full light upon the subject, orthodox divines generally refused to adopt this mode of stating the point, because it seemed to ascribe to Christ a purpose or intention of dying in the room of all, and of benefiting all by the proper effects of His death, as an atonement or propitiation; not that they doubted or denied the intrinsic sufficiency of His death for the redemption of all men, but because the statement -- whether originally so intended or not -- was so expressed as to suffest the idea, that Christ, in dying, desired and intended that all men should partake in the proper and peculiar effects of the shedding of His blood. Calvinists do not object to say that the death of Christ -- viewed objectively, apart from His purpose or design -- was sufficient for all, and efficacious for the elect, because this statement in the first clause merely asserts its infinite intrinsic sufficiency, which they admit; whereas the original scholastic form of the statement, -- namely, that He died sufficiently for all, -- seems to indicate that, when He died, He intended that all should derive some saving and permanent benefit from His death.” (Historical Theology, vol. 2, p. 332).
    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

  5. #65
    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
    Obviously I disagree Martin. The article sets forth the prposition, the difuses the ballon greatlyand practically. Everyone could sit and throw their interps around back and forth, but the article brings it to life and understnading without any disharmony. The reasons for this belief are clearly set forth in the 4 propositions:

    • There is a fear that God might be charged with injustice if an atonement is not somehow provided for all.
    • A universal aspect of the atonement is perceived as necessary for a bona fide offer of the gospel to all men.
    • The atonement must somehow be designed for the non-elect in order to render them inexcusable for their unbelief.
    • Since Christ in His person is divine and infinite, so must be His work on the cross; therefore His death is sufficient for all.
    I'm sorry Joe but I think you are completely missing what I am saying.

    Let me try to make it clearer.

    Ellis begins by saying that the sufficiency/efficiency formula:
    seems to ascribe to Christ a purpose or intention to die in the place of all men, and to benefit all by the proper effects of His death as an atonement or propitiation. This inference is not supported by a scriptural view of the nature of the atonement or by the Calvinistic understanding of limited atonement.
    Well, first off I think he is right in the inference he draws from it but notice what he says next: he says that it "is not supported by a scriptural view of the nature of the atonement". Tell me what do you think he should do next? He's just asserted that its not scriptural so shouldn't he turn to the scriptures and see what they say? but what does he actually do? Now watch carefully.

    What he does next is pose the question "Why is the term "sufficient for all" used in discussing the atonement?" but notice how he answers it: he says he is going to look at some of the "probable reasons". "Primarily", he says, "use of this terminology seems to be an attempt to soften the impact of the doctrine of limited atonement". He goes on to say that "There appear to be several underlying reasons why this statement has been used. I believe the following are representative of those reasons".

    After giving those "reasons" he then goes on to refute them but wait a minute! Who says they're the right reasons?

    So let's be clear he is refuting some reasons that he believes represent what he thinks appears to be the reasons for the use of the phrase all of which he thinks seems to be an attempt to soften LA. Get my drift yet? He has named some much later reformed theologians who have used it (but referenced none of the early reformers or medieveal scholastics who actually first coined it and used it) but he has not cited any evidence to show why they used it. He doesn't say anything like "Hodge says he affirmed the formula for the following reasons" he simply invents some reasons why he thinks its being used! Notice the use of "probable reasons", "seems", "appears". He sets up a straw man.

    Look what this article does is attempt to refute the reasons that he gives for the phrase being used NOT the scriptural basis for the phrase. Putting aside for a moment that I can expose numerous errors in what he says later you need to see that he is not refuting the phrase but his reasons that he thinks the phrase is used. Can you see the difference? I reject the reasons he gives for why the phrase is used thus his whole opening argument collapses. Let me put it another way: he is giving the reasons why he thinks the phrase is used and then showing why those reasons are wrong but I am saying I don't use those reasons to justify the phrase in the first place so I don't have to answer him. Get it now?

    For sure later on he does try to address the question "What errors are there in the "sufficiency for all" view?" and we can maybe deal with that in due course but you need to see first that anything prior to that point is simply barking up the wrong tree. And of course, unsuprisingly, his later arguments are riddled with unstated assumptions too because he still doesn't understand what he is attacking. Before you can refute something you have to understand it!

    By the way, he also says how this view isn't "supported by a Calvinistic understanding of limited atonement". That is either gross ignorance on the part of a man who should not presume to be a teacher of God's Word or downright dishonesty. There is just stacks and stacks of evidence to show that the suffiency/efficiency view has been held by many Calvinists to say nothing of the fact that we have already seen the evidence within this thread that Calvin himself held to it. If a non-academic dimwit such as me can expose such a basic error than I'm going to be suspicious of anything else he says.


    Quote Originally Posted by lionovjudah
    I will add another. Proponents of this doctrine must believe that God turns away those who truley seek Him.
    Well see, here's the thing: I am a proponent of this doctrine but never mind that I don't believe that God turns away those who truly seek Him I cannot see any logical basis for even thinking that. This just serves to show what a huge understanding gap there is here. If you really want to discuss this than I guess you'd have to show why you think it must mean that before I can even begin to comprehend what you're thinking and thus be able to respond to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by lionovjudah
    I have been blinded by this thought until recently. There is not one man in hell that can charge God with injustice or unfairness. Not one person in hell will say," I came to you, I loved you, I repented, and you turned away from me" But this sufficient/effective scheme believes this happens.
    See I agree with you so you cannot be understanding my position.

    Quote Originally Posted by lionovjudah
    Cameron must have believed souls in hell will cry this.
    Interesting you cite Cameron since he's not been mentioned previously but can you cite any evidence?

    Martin

  6. #66
    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

    Interesting you cite Cameron since he's not been mentioned previously but can you cite any evidence?

    Martin
    To quote Steven Colbet of the Colber Report:

    "I can say anythig I want without backign it up with facts"

    Have a meeting, but I will be ack
    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

  7. #67
    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
    Martin: What are you looking to discuss? Dont throw the baby out with the water here. Obviously some posts have addressed the issue, all cannot be misguided could they? You have provided quotes from Calvin that clearly express his words, but not his complete thoughts. We can specualte all day what he meant. Again, in some of the quotes he does make Christs death in intrinsic value capable fo covering all the sins of all men ever born or would be born. But then in other areas does not extend this to those He never intended to save. Calvin did not think that Christ died for Peter or Paul in the same manner as He died for Judas.
    I agree with this last sentence but I'm still not sure you understand why calvin could say things that appear contradictory. But like you say there's probably little point in futher discussion of what Calvin meant - we'd have to read a large proportion of his work to even begin to stand a chance of understanding how he thinks.

    Quote Originally Posted by lionovjudah
    I personally have to dismiss this thought.
    Only because you don't really understand why he said it.

    Quote Originally Posted by lionovjudah
    Now that said, I am also at odds with many here. I believe scripture does speak of some offer. But I do not believe there has to be any universal aspect to the atonement because of an offer. Again AMrtin, you and the 4 pointers will have to answer this question: Does God ever reject those who do come to Him? Scripture says no. "I will in no way cast out those who come to me."
    Hopefully you will have already seen from my previous post that I have already answered that with a distinct "no". But see again, you don't understand my position - I am NOT a four-pointer!

    Quote Originally Posted by lionovjudah
    For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me; and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

    I love this scripture. Did the Father give Him Judas? Did the Father give Him Cain? Notice the 2 aspects of this verse, one of the only verses that says "this is the will of God" Both aspects are true.
    See I love this verse too but you're doing what folk around here love to do: assuming you understand my position.

    Quote Originally Posted by lionovjudah
    Christs death is sufficient for all, not all men, but all manner of sin. Every single one (Except blaspheming the Holy Ghost).

    SO Christs death was sufficient for all who see Him and believes in Him. THe rub is the reprobate will never see Him nor believe in Him, nor ever want to. This is the problem. The reprobate will NEVER believe in Him. Because if a man does, he is elect.
    Again I agree - so what are you trying to prove???

    Quote Originally Posted by lionovjudah
    William Cunningham (1805-1861) gives insight into potential misunderstanding of the Reformed position, which serves as a call for care in using the “sufficient for all, efficient for the elect” terminology.
    “A distinction was generally employed by the schoolmen, which has often been adverted to in this discussion, and which it may be proper to explain. They were accustomed to say, that Christ died sufficiently for all men, and efficaciously for the elect, -- sufficientur pro omnibus, efficaciter pro electis. Some orthodox divines, who wrote before the extent of the atonement had been made the subject of full, formal, and elaborate discussion, and Calvin himself among the rest, -- admitted the truth of this scholastic position. But after controversy had thrown its full light upon the subject, orthodox divines generally refused to adopt this mode of stating the point, because it seemed to ascribe to Christ a purpose or intention of dying in the room of all, and of benefiting all by the proper effects of His death, as an atonement or propitiation; not that they doubted or denied the intrinsic sufficiency of His death for the redemption of all men, but because the statement -- whether originally so intended or not -- was so expressed as to suffest the idea, that Christ, in dying, desired and intended that all men should partake in the proper and peculiar effects of the shedding of His blood. Calvinists do not object to say that the death of Christ -- viewed objectively, apart from His purpose or design -- was sufficient for all, and efficacious for the elect, because this statement in the first clause merely asserts its infinite intrinsic sufficiency, which they admit; whereas the original scholastic form of the statement, -- namely, that He died sufficiently for all, -- seems to indicate that, when He died, He intended that all should derive some saving and permanent benefit from His death.” (Historical Theology, vol. 2, p. 332).
    Yes I believe that is historically accurate. I believe they were wrong to do so but it is a reasonably accurate reflection of what took place over time - although there has always been those who hold views similar to my own I think its fair to say they became a minority amongst the reformed during the 17th C.

    Martin

  8. #68
    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
    I agree with this last sentence but I'm still not sure you understand why calvin could say things that appear contradictory. But like you say there's probably little point in futher discussion of what Calvin meant - we'd have to read a large proportion of his work to even begin to stand a chance of understanding how he thinks.


    See I love this verse too but you're doing what folk around here love to do: assuming you understand my position.


    Martin
    People around here? THis happens everywhere MArtin. Plus assuming anothers understanding is part of the battle is it not? I know you are not a 4 pointer. IT does get confusing because of semantics and one drawing a conclusion based on our own presuppositions. I always wondered what the contemporaries thought when the wrods we read were read or heard by them the first time.

    When JTB(John The Baptist) said "The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" etc etc. Obviously due to the lack of comments, we can only specualte what they believed. This debate is not spoken of until Cameron. Hence I agree with Huntington that it came after Calvin, therefore his works will not reflect his thoughts on this subject.

    I also have looked at the Canons of Dort on the subject:

    The Second Main Point of Doctrine

    Christ's Death and Human Redemption Through Its

    Article 1: The Punishment Which God's Justice Requires
    God is not only supremely merciful, but also supremely just. His justice requires (as he has revealed himself in the Word) that the sins we have committed against his infinite majesty be punished with both temporal and eternal punishments, of soul as well as body. We cannot escape these punishments unless satisfaction is given to God's justice.
    Article 2: The Satisfaction Made by Christ
    Since, however, we ourselves cannot give this satisfaction or deliver ourselves from God's anger, God in his boundless mercy has given us as a guarantee his only begotten Son, who was made to be sin and a curse for us, in our place, on the cross, in order that he might give satisfaction for us.
    Article 3: The Infinite Value of Christ's Death
    This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.
    Article 4: Reasons for This Infinite Value
    This death is of such great value and worth for the reason that the person who suffered it is--as was necessary to be our Savior--not only a true and perfectly holy man, but also the only begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Another reason is that this death was accompanied by the experience of God's anger and curse, which we by our sins had fully deserved.
    Article 5: The Mandate to Proclaim the Gospel to All
    Moreover, it is the promise of the gospel that whoever believes in Christ crucified shall not perish but have eternal life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be announced and declared without differentiation or discrimination to all nations and people, to whom God in his good pleasure sends the gospel.
    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

  9. #69
    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

    Dear Martin:

    It really seems that you do have a lot of time! Also it does seems that someone else is speaking, other than you, but that's fine with me...

    You ask a lot of question and demand the finest detail on my writings but offer no answer for the questions presented. You use the "majority" argument to call "me" part of the minority...

    You make fun of me because I use parallelisms, which appear to be two ideas but are actually one... such as "one purpose alone", teaching... and to be the vornerstone for...

    I have presented really substantiated arguments. You changed the meaning of John 3:18, you never answered the purpose of teaching the obvious on the "sufficiency/efficiency", although I used comparisons that even the non-initiated Sunday schooler could comprehend. I still do not have an answer from you as to what purpose this teaching accomplishes and how it makes God a good God, who gives anyone an opportunity by offering a solution that He does not intend the party whom the solution is directed to accept...

    If you would stop reading what you call "majority"! You know, two billion flies every day eat... you know, I will not eat the same only because they are in the majority. The papacy also proclaims the majority rule. The Roman Catholic Church has a saying: Vox Populi, Vox Dei... The voice of the people is the voice of God.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martin
    1. Actually a lot of reformed folk believe in all those things and yet have never heard of the sufficiency, efficiency formula so how does that make it the grounds or foundation for those doctrines or how can this prove what the purpose of the “sufficiency/efficiency” formula is if they’ve never even heard of it?
    Says who? As far as I know you only came in contact with any reformed teaching, the real core and deep reformed teaching once you joined our forum in the recent past and then moved to Ponter's Forum and called his a "reformed doctrine". I am in contact with some Reformed Baptists from another country who do believe and use terms such as "sufficiency/efficiency. I think your knowledge of "reformed folk" is limited.
    Most reformed folk have backslidden and now believe "common grace, free offer, (tell everyone that God loves them and calls them), and universal calling, which differs from "free offer" because "free offer" insanily implies a free will response, but universal calling does not even imply one... I believe some of these terms may require definition since authors and theologians differ in the definitions of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martin
    2. The majority of reformed people uphold the free offer, two wills and common grace and yet positively deny any universal sufficiency. Surely you would agree that it is statistically true that most reformed people hold to a strict definite atonement? So your assertion that these other doctrines are grounded in the “sufficiency/efficiency” formula is ‘groundless’ as well as pointless.
    Grondless and pointless if all you have is text books. I suggest you go around a bit! Free offer and two wills are based upon, founded on the fact that they believe that God's provision in Christ is sufficient for all but efficient for the elect. If they would believe "exclusive atonement" they would not have the two wills or the free offer mindset. Text books can be really limited in demonstrating what beliefs are common on the part of the majority. Usually an author writes and everyone takes his writings to mean what they want.
    You don't know the majority. You know a few authors and a few internet Forums. You don't get out much, do you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Martin
    Well at least your logic is sound on this point! - although insane is not the word I would use. And, as I have already said, the reality is that the majority of reformed people do just this: they hold to a free offer and yet reject any universal expiation on which it can be based. So, at least my position satisfies your quest for a logically reconcilable system on this one point (and yeah, I recognise that you will say it is illogical at a thousand others!).
    Majority, Majority, Majority! Narrow is the gate... I would not follow the majority... It may lead you to a very large and wide gate.
    As far as the logic of what you call "majority" position and your position (I hope you take your position regardless of the majority position lest you would spekak wishy washy person and I would be debating whispering eminences),

    I have already accepted your logic if you admit that is the same as saying that a "war tank is sufficient to destroy a molehill, but efficient to destroy large strategic enemy structures". If that's what the logic is, I see no relevance in it but it is undenyable: a war tank is indeed sufficient to destroy a molehill... So much as a sledge hammer is sufficient to kill a fly...
    But I also believe that it is indeed reminiscent of the RCC doctrine of Mary and her sufficiency to redeem the devil... You know, some reformers left the RCC, but the RCC NEVER left them!

    Quote Originally Posted by Martin
    Well, your implied interpretation of John 3:18 cannot be substantiated from the text. Condemnation is clearly the result of not believing.
    Jn 3:18, (KJV), He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

    Why this text requires interpretation?

    Where is in Romans 2:5 the context of what we are discussing? By the way, read chapter 1 from verse 18 to chapter 2 verse 16 you will know that Paul is not dealing with believing here; he is dealing with a group of sinners who judge other sinners and do the same but believe to be "excusable". Later in the text Paul talks even about Gentiles (that means that the others were Jews) who have no law but instinctively do the things of the Law become a Law to themselves... I see no idea of belief here. Before you tell me that I misinterpret a text within Biblical context, interpret the text I gave you first.

    Well, what do you believe? Can you state clearly and unequivocally here?
    Can you state YOUR convictions? That would help us go along and earn a double degree of respect on my part (I know you don't care and return to me the same "deference"); because so far it appears to me that you are parroting someone else's teaching and yet have not formed your convictions, thus making me unfair to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martin
    I will try to expose some of the problems I am having in the next couple of posts but then I will need some evidence that there is any point in continuing.
    May I predict the future?


    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

  10. #70
    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

    Milt,

    Well at least we have some scripture amidst all the waffle.

    Quote Originally Posted by GraceAmbassador
    ...
    (Big snip of all the pointless stuff)
    ...

    Jn 3:18, (KJV), He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

    Why this text requires interpretation?

    Where is in Romans 2:5 the context of what we are discussing? By the way, read chapter 1 from verse 18 to chapter 2 verse 16 you will know that Paul is not dealing with believing here; he is dealing with a group of sinners who judge other sinners and do the same but believe to be "excusable". Later in the text Paul talks even about Gentiles (that means that the others were Jews) who have no law but instinctively do the things of the Law become a Law to themselves... I see no idea of belief here. Before you tell me that I misinterpret a text within Biblical context, interpret the text I gave you first.
    No, actually you are the one making the assertion. You interpret the text. You back up your assertion. You said that God has already judged and offered John 3:18 to substantiate the claim. I said it doesn't as "Condemnation is clearly the result of not believing." (I derive this from the use of 'because'). Now the onus is on you to back it up with your interpretation. I have no idea how on earth you can get the idea that God has already judged from this verse or its context.

    Having said that if that is how you 'interpret' scripture then there's probably no point - you'll be able to make anything you want up.

    So, back to the beginning of your post, a couple of comments and then I'll wrap it up.

    Quote Originally Posted by GraceAmbassador
    Dear Martin:

    It really seems that you do have a lot of time! Also it does seems that someone else is speaking, other than you, but that's fine with me...
    No. I just learnt to see through the smoke screens you put up.

    And no I don't have the time to deal with this much fog and confusion! Patently you are not understanding what I am saying. There is really no point in continuing. You are not interested in serious discussion. You read things in that aren't being said. I get the distinct impression that your only concern is to be seen as winning or as having the last word. By nature I am a detail-oriented person and it makes me want to refute all the errors and veiled insults but I must try to rise above it. My vindication is from the Lord. You can have the last word and say what you want, it doesn't make it true. This is going nowhere. If anyone is interested in serious debate post your questions at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Calvin_and_Calvinism/


    Quote Originally Posted by GraceAmbassador
    Well, what do you believe? Can you state clearly and unequivocally here?
    Can you state YOUR convictions?
    Of course I can but there would really be no point. I would just be setting myself up as a target for more false accusations, straw men, insults and the like. If we can't have an honest debate about matters of history how can we have an honest debate about what I believe?

    Quote Originally Posted by GraceAmbassador
    May I predict the future?
    Its no longer the future: its the here and now.

    Martin

    PS. I will admit you live up to the 'resilient' description. Resilience is not a sign of being right however.

  11. #71
    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

    Dear Brethren and others:

    It has been reported to me by a VERY trustworthy source, which allows me to believe his word with no need to check the source, that my posts are being discussed in another Forum and my name is being trashed as an unreasonable person and that the writers of the other forum are advising at least one of their participants not to respond to me and ignore me here at 5solas.

    Let me tell you a few things about that:

    First of all, most of the writers whose names were presented to me, who write in that forum are people who are behind a computer screen, and as the example set here by another member, they can write and defend whatever they want with no scrutiny, no checks and balances and eventually change their ideas at the appearance of the first adventurer who comes in with an opinion attributed to the "majority"

    As for me, however, because I have an ordination, because I am a so called "minister" and have a public ministry in two countries, my writings are scrutinized and I have been warned a few times that everything I write is becoming a track record of opinions that can jeopardize my future opportunities of ministry. As such, what I write is to my own financial and personal loss and I am fully aware of it.

    So, contrary to the armchair theologians and opinion givers wishy washy parrots of someone else's opinion, mine are courageous, not based on a pursuit for acceptance in a group or in a particular community of purveyors of the "majority opinion" and the "majority rule". The armchair theologians, novelty bearers and novices are cowards who have nothing to defend, can say what they say and later change, (and they do change!) their opinions and there will be no accountability at all!

    I repute the taking of my posts to another Forum, or the reading of our posts in another Forum makes me very proud; I thank the publicity but do not need it. God has taken me so far wherever He has taken me and lead me to minister to more people in a Saturday afternoon that most of these people will even see in ten lifetimes... let alone minister to them! Even not believing in "free offer, common grace and universal atonement" I have "offered" the Gospel, which I call presented the Gospel to more people than these hypocrites that repeat the same concepts over and over again to the same crowd.

    Numbers, though, mean nothing to me! I am only concerned with the fact that God can and will use someone like me in spite of the fact that these youthful opinionated will ever allowed God to do so if they could do something about it! I don't care if I share the Gospel to one or one million, I only care that I do it based upon convictions that God lays in my heart whereas those who trash my name and opinions (I am OK with trashing my opinions) would probably soil their pants if they would ever be in the places where God has led me to minister. To God be the Glory, but I am defending not myself, not even my ministry. I am simply appalled that people with no Curriculum Vitae in the ministry, whose scope of activity is as narrow as a computer screen are trashing me as the "worst hyper that ever existed" and as an unreasonable person.

    Well, If 5solas is the grounds for one to maintain a Forum, I am proud of it! But let me tell you to those who hold to this wishy washy position of "sufficiency/efficiency" ONLY because the majority defends it, that:

    Taking our, mine, name to any other Forum to be trashed and even our opinions is:
    1. Gossip
    2. Backbiting
    3. Coward
    All of the above is against the Bible! So, if someone does not respect the Bible as far as the treatment of someone else, brother or not, then, why would they receive any credence for their "credo"?

    Furthermore, why don't they come here and answer the question:

    What is the relevance of "sufficiency/efficiency" doctrine other that be a foundation for: common grace, free offer and a few others?

    How much more relevant is this doctrine than saying that a "sledge hammer is sufficient to kill a fly but efficient to break concrete"? Or, that a "war tank is sufficient to destroy a molehill...

    Well, it seems that repeating the question will not provoke them to answer because they are consulting with the majority and the majority probably did not foresee such questioning; they are to reminiscent of papacy and the papacy by culture does not expect to be questioned!

    If God offers something to the reprobate and does not intend for them to respond to the "offer" how can this be a bona fide offer? Is God a "teaser"? Isn't that a mean God rather than the Good God you are trying to prove with your sufficiency/efficiency argument?

    If God offers something to the reprobates and offers them the opportunity to respond positively for the offer, why don't these people just admit that they are arminians?

    Some will ask for Bible scriptures to support my position. Why would I give it to them when they cannot present any for their position and in addition they oppose biblical commands in that they go around gossiping, backbiting and cowardly keeping their position in their group fearing opposition?

    I hope THIS post is pasted in their Web Sites. The names of the people presented to me are the same whom I debated in the infamous PalTalk rooms and they NEVER advanced their opposition to my points; either they just learned their position now or they CHANGED. I believe is the latter; why would I give credibility to them without giving time as perhaps they will CHANGE AGAIN to an even worst position?

    As a child who learned how to read time yesterday and today is telling his buddies how to build a watch, these "kids" have learned what they learned yesterday, or sooner, at no cost, no personal sacrifice, and nothing that would prompt them to question their own convictions; now they go around teaching it as if they became professors of it...

    I know that God is watching all this! That's why I pray His will, toward His will that He brings us enlightenment, illumination, so we can decipher all he wants. I have a few people who really need more than to know whether there is "sufficiency/efficiency", much more than to know the meaning of "infralapsarian or supralapsarian" in order to be open to the things that God is indeed offering to them. I will tend to these people.

    My opponents, please, continue to hide behind a computer screen and write things to impress the majority. It suits you well since you could not have an opinion of your own if it would be physically inserted in your mind with an axe! As such, you need a coach, lest you die!

    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

  12. #72
    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

    And no I don't have the time to deal with this much fog and confusion! Patently you are not understanding what I am saying. There is really no point in continuing. You are not interested in serious discussion. You read things in that aren't being said. I get the distinct impression that your only concern is to be seen as winning or as having the last word. By nature I am a detail-oriented person and it makes me want to refute all the errors and veiled insults but I must try to rise above it. My vindication is from the Lord. You can have the last word and say what you want, it doesn't make it true. This is going nowhere. If anyone is interested in serious debate post your questions at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Calvin_and_Calvinism/
    Why?

    For Doug and Ponter to answer for you? Are you playing the buggle for the Cavalry reinforcement now?

    The reason why you perceive that I am not understanding what you are saying is because YOU are not saying anything. I wish you were! I want to learn and change as God teaches me through other servants!

    I am sad it is over the way it is, but I am glad it is over! Go and find solace among those who will say "amen" to your opinions or the lack thereof...

    This is the place for real discussion and we are the real detail oriented people!

    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

  13. #73
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    50
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on 1 John 2:2

    Well it sure wasnt me because Milt, if I object to anything you say, Ill tell you right here. But, Im sorry others wont do it to your face. It is a cowardly thing NOT to confront someone to there face. Maybe you dont care for my issuing this post about your situation, but I do agree with you. Im sorry if youve been trashed.

  14. #74
    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

    Here is the evidence of how the site advertised by Martin "recruits" their people and treats us:

    This is only for the sake of laughter and evidence; it has no meaning in terms of my perception of who and what they are: it is also giving "them" a little bit of their own medicine!

    I take FULL responsibility for publishing this as a proof of "coaching", even brain washing on one end, and "submission" in the other end:

    ---------- Forwarded message ----------
    From: David W. Ponter < flynn000@bellsouth.net>
    Date: Jan 9, 2006 11:17 AM
    Subject: Re: [C&C] Re: Web citing, 1 Jn 2:2 and Calvin (was funny news)
    To: Calvin_and_Calvinism@yahoogroups.com

    G'day Martin,

    I read most of it. Hey Brandan, if you are reading this, allowing Ray to
    post those comments is simply disgusting. How on earth can you claim to
    want serious discussion when you allow idiots like that to just offend
    and demean your opponents?

    To Martin,

    Keep dialoguing with Lion of Judah. The rest of them I would just
    ignore. They cant even begin to agree on the terms and references of the
    debate. There was so much clutter in that, that it was insane. I would
    completely ignore Milt.

    The key is, does Calvin's comments on 1 Jn 2:2 prove that Calvin held to
    a limited atonement. So this would need something of a discussion of

    1) his terms internal to the citation, terms like extend, benefit, etc.

    2) the very concessions within the citations, such as suffered for all,
    and its incontestable that Christ came to expiate the sins of the world
    (from the tract). What do these mean?

    3) What is the probable intention, then, from Calvin: eg, what does does
    Calvin think *John* is saying? Indeed, can that be inferred from Calvin?
    If so, what would be the limitations of that, if any? I mean, if we can
    see that Calvin is saying that here *John* means this..., etc etc, what
    does that tell us about Calvin's theology of the extent of the
    atonement, more generally? What do the concession statements inform us
    at this point. Indeed, is this a valid way of looking at Calvin on this
    verse and in this citation? The hypers would just, it seems to me, say
    apriorily NO. For them, what Calvin thinks regarding John's meaning on
    this verse is just assumed to be ALSO what Calvin thinks generally and
    everywhere else regarding the extent of the atonement (hope that makes
    sense Martin).

    4) the presense of external confirming or disconfirming evidence to
    either interpretation. Eg, are there other like statements which mirror
    his comment from the tract 'it is incontestable that Christ came to
    expiate the sins of the world...' Or other like statements that speak of
    Christ suffering for all etc. Does he affirm limited or unlimited
    atonement elsewhere, such that the external evidence could provide or
    determine a norming preponderance of one interpretation against the other?

    To close,

    I have to say it, Ray is a sick man. I dont know what it is that makes
    him really think that the way and the what of his posts actually posts
    anything intelligible or credible, and this amazes me. He writes like an
    esmaculated eunuch trying to prove to a male that he is really a man.
    But in fact, everyone just looks (down) and sees the truth.

    Yeah, he makes me so mad cos of his offensiveness. That Brandan allows
    it, and I bet even thinks my comments against Ray here as a badge of
    honour, that I am a persecuting anti-Christian against the
    "righteousness" of Ray just tells me categorically that its not worth
    it. Its not worth it. Ray justifies ENTIRELY the criticisms of Phil
    Johnson of the 5solas. And the fact that Brandan allows Ray top perform,
    itself further justifies those criticisms completely.



    But keep talkkng to Lion, off-board.


    David


    Martin Thorley wrote:
    > I think I've just discovered some hitherto unknown masochistic tendencies! I
    > noticed that the Calvin quote on 1 John 2:2 had been originally posted by
    > someone else at 5solas before Brandan posted it here and decided to respond.
    > Things have been going downhill ever since :-)
    > http://www.predestinarian.net/showthread.php?t=2928
    >
    > Its already three pages long and yet its got nowhere!
    >
    > I have tried to be as diplomatic and as patient as I can but its been hard!
    > - and all the while I'm asking myself "why am I even bothering?". Anyway
    > feel free to tell me how mad I am. I would also be interested in any
    > feedback on anywhere I may have misspoke since I'm still in the process of
    > refining what I believe (as we all are I suppose, just that I'm further
    > behind).
    >
    > Warning: not for those who easily get annoyed by the things hypers say! ;-)
    >
    > Martin
    >
    >
    >
    > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
    > Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing
    > http://us.click.yahoo.com/B6T8nB/Vp3LAA/EcBKAA/GuTslB/TM
    > --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
    >
    >
    > Yahoo! Groups Links
    >
    > <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Calvin_and_Calvinism/
    >
    > <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    > Calvin_and_Calvinism-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
    >
    > <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >


    --
    And, indeed, in like manner as God showed by an inestimable pledge,
    when he spared not his only--begotten Son, how great is the
    care which he has for the Church, so he will not suffer
    to remain unpunished the negligence of pastors, through
    whom souls, which he hath redeemed at so costly a price,
    perish or are exposed as a prey. Calvin, 2 Tim 4:1
    The Apostle in the meantime exhorts us to be mutually
    solicitous for the salvation of one another; and he
    would also have us to regard the falls of the brethren
    as stimulants to prayer. And surely it is an iron hardness
    to be touched with no pity, when we see souls redeemed by
    Christ's blood going to ruin. Calvin, 1 Jn 5:16.
    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

  15. #75
    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

    The key is, does Calvin's comments on 1 Jn 2:2 prove that Calvin held to
    a limited atonement.
    Did you see the deception! I believed that we were debating whether Jesus propitiated in a way or another for the sins of the whole world but the whole world cannot receive.

    Now it is whether Calvin's comments indicate whether he believed or not in Limited Atonement.

    Can we be so naive? Where do you think such a proposition intend to lead us? Let me give you a hint: A 4 points (if so many) Calvinism, without the L of the TULIP, or LIMITED ATONEMENT!

    I am glad it is over and I pray it is over!

    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

  16. #76
    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

    Keep dialoguing with Lion of Judah.

    But keep talkkng to Lion, off-board.


    Wow, my name is in print on the web!!!!!!!!!!! WOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
    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

  17. #77
    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

    Milt, this is an example of how dialogue with you is impossible when you jump to conclusions like that. You quote the following from David's email (which you published without permission):
    The key is, does Calvin's comments on 1 Jn 2:2 prove that Calvin held to
    a limited atonement.
    You then said:
    Quote Originally Posted by GraceAmbassador
    Did you see the deception! I believed that we were debating whether Jesus propitiated in a way or another for the sins of the whole world but the whole world cannot receive.
    Talk about jumping to conclusions! Milt:
    1. Look again at the title of the thread
    2. Look at the first post
    3. Look at the number of posts I made which mentioned Calvin and how long discussion about what Calvin may have meant went on.
    4. Re-read the beggining of David's note where he says He read most of it i.e. NOT all of the thread.
    5. Then do one of the following:
    1. offer some convincing proof for your allegation in the face of the evidence against you
    2. take it back and apologise
    3. let everyone carry on thinking what an idiot you are.

    Martin

  18. #78
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,671
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    73
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    117
    Thanked in
    63 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on 1 John 2:2

    This thread is now closed.
    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. #79
    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

    Allow me to do as the prossecutor who found "new evidence" and decided to request the exhuming of a cadaver. I will post here something that I found from Gill on the issue of the "whole world". With a cool head, this reflects my own perception of the text. I hope that because it is from John Gill and not me, it will be worthy of attention.
    I do not expect no one to be even remotely interested in this thread anymore, but I want to add to the record that my opinion was not off track as some of my opponents alleged it to be:

    1 John 2:2
    And he is the propitiation for our sins
    For the sins of us who now believe, and are Jews:

    and not for ours only;
    but for the sins of Old Testament saints, and of those who shall hereafter believe in Christ, and of the Gentiles also, signified in the next clause:
    but also for [the sins] of the whole world;



    the Syriac version renders it, "not for us only, but also for the whole world"; that is, not for the Jews only, for John was a Jew, and so were those he wrote unto, but for the Gentiles also. Nothing is more common in Jewish writings than to call the Gentiles (amle) , "the world"; and (Mlweh lk) , "the whole world"; and (Mlweh twmwa) , "the nations of the world" ; (See Gill on 12:19); and the word "world" is so used in Scripture; see (John 3:16) (4:42) (Romans 11:12,15) ; and stands opposed to a notion the Jews have of the Gentiles, that (hrpk Nhl Nya) , "there is no propitiation for them" : and it is easy to observe, that when this phrase is not used of the Gentiles, it is to be understood in a limited and restrained sense; as when they say ,
    ``it happened to a certain high priest, that when he went out of the sanctuary, (amle ylwk) , "the whole world" went after him;''


    which could only design the people in the temple. And elsewhere it is said,

    ``(amle ylwk) , "the "whole world" has left the Misna, and gone after the "Gemara";''


    which at most can only intend the Jews; and indeed only a majority of their doctors, who were conversant with these writings: and in another place ,

    ``(amle ylwk) , "the whole world" fell on their faces, but Raf did not fall on his face;''


    where it means no more than the congregation. Once more, it is said {q}, when

    ``R. Simeon ben Gamaliel entered (the synagogue), (amle ylwk) , "the whole world" stood up before him;''


    that is, the people in the synagogue: to which may be added ,

    ``when a great man makes a mourning, (amle ylwk) , "the whole world" come to honour him;''


    i.e. a great number of persons attend the funeral pomp: and so these phrases, (ygylp al amle ylwk) , "the whole world" is not divided, or does not dissent ; (yrbo amle ylwk) , "the whole world" are of opinion , are frequently met with in the Talmud, by which, an agreement among the Rabbins, in certain points, is designed; yea, sometimes the phrase, "all the men of the world" , only intend the inhabitants of a city where a synagogue was, and, at most, only the Jews: and so this phrase, "all the world", or "the whole world", in Scripture, unless when it signifies the whole universe, or the habitable earth, is always used in a limited sense, either for the Roman empire, or the churches of Christ in the world, or believers, or the present inhabitants of the world, or a part of them only, (Luke 2:1) (Romans 1:8) (3:19) (Colossians 1:6) (Revelation 3:10) (12:9) (13:3) ; and so it is in this epistle, (1 John 5:19) ; where the whole world lying in wickedness is manifestly distinguished from the saints, who are of God, and belong not to the world; and therefore cannot be understood of all the individuals in the world; and the like distinction is in this text itself, for "the sins of the whole world" are opposed to "our sins", the sins of the apostle and others to whom he joins himself; who therefore belonged not to, nor were a part of the whole world, for whose sins Christ is a propitiation as for theirs: so that this passage cannot furnish out any argument for universal redemption; for besides these things, it may be further observed, that for whose sins Christ is a propitiation, their sins are atoned for and pardoned, and their persons justified from all sin, and so shall certainly be glorified, which is not true of the whole world, and every man and woman in it; moreover, Christ is a propitiation through faith in his blood, the benefit of his propitiatory sacrifice is only received and enjoyed through faith; so that in the event it appears that Christ is a propitiation only for believers, a character which does not agree with all mankind; add to this, that for whom Christ is a propitiation he is also an advocate, (1 John 2:1) ; but he is not an advocate for every individual person in the world; yea, there is a world he will not pray for (John 17:9) , and consequently is not a propitiation for them. Once more, the design of the apostle in these words is to comfort his "little children" with the advocacy and propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, who might fall into sin through weakness and inadvertency; but what comfort would it yield to a distressed mind, to be told that Christ was a propitiation not only for the sins of the apostles and other saints, but for the sins of every individual in the world, even of these that are in hell? Would it not be natural for persons in such circumstances to argue rather against, than for themselves, and conclude that seeing persons might be damned notwithstanding the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, that this might, and would be their case. In what sense Christ is a propitiation, (See Gill on Romans 3:25). The Jews have no notion of the Messiah as a propitiation or atonement; sometimes they say repentance atones for all sin; sometimes the death of the righteous ; sometimes incense ; sometimes the priests' garments ; sometimes it is the day of atonement ; and indeed they are in the utmost puzzle about atonement; and they even confess in their prayers , that they have now neither altar nor priest to atone for them; (See Gill on 1 John 4:10).

    end of Gill's quote. (emphasis are mine)

    Hoping that my coleagues, the moderators, will understand that my sole purpose in posting this here is to indicate to all that Gill's opinion reflects my own, and to place such a reflection in the record of this Forum, I rest my case and see no need to further discuss this matter with anyone.

    In the Blessed Assurance... the foretaste of Glory Divine,

    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

  20. #80
    Moderator ugly_gaunt_cow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,030
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11
    Thanked in
    5 Posts

    Re: John Calvin on 1 John 2:2

    Quote Originally Posted by GraceAmbassador
    I rest my case and see no need to further discuss this matter with anyone.

    In the Blessed Assurance... the foretaste of Glory Divine,

    Milt
    Good post Milt.

    I think this dead horse has been beaten enough.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 4

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
  •