John calvin, Universal Atonement, Free Offer, and Paltalk

[John 6-37]

ohn Calvin, John 3:16, Univeral Atonement, and Paltalk!

As many of you are aware there was an interchange between me (john637) and other
individual(s) on paltalk last night in my chat room "Reformed Theology Chat"
about John Calvin and John 3:16. It was put forward by 3 people that their belief was
that Calvin taught and believed in a universal offer of salvation to all, conditioned
on their faith and repentace. A offer and genuine desire to save both the reprobate
and the elect. I shall quote calvin at length as it was presented in the chat:

"That whosoever believeth on him may not perish. It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that
it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear
to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and,
therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed
the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off
every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used;
for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows
himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith
of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.

Now if indeed this is the condition of Calvin, then infact I am wrong. If infact Calvin
held to a universal atonement CONDITIONED on our faith and repentnace, then
again I am wrong. But is this what Calvin taught and believed? I believe the obvious
answer is a hearty NO!

Now, lets as oursevles a question. If God does NOT really will the salvation of all men, then in noway
does Calvin on John 3:16 teach, offer, nor suggest a "universal offer of salvation, conditioned
on their faith and repentance."

Again, Calvin is NOT my final authority, my final authority is the Holy Scriptures, as guided by
the Westminster Confession Of Faith. I am NOT guided by the puritans, the church reformers, and
not even Calvin. Though they have given a great body of work for those in the reformed camp
(Confessional, Presbyterian, and Reformed), they are not inspired, nor my final authority. I will
use Calvin and Calvin alone in this response to show that he did NOT teach a universal atonement
and that Calvin did NOT teach that Christ died for all men, conditioned on their faith and repentance.

< style="font-family: arial;">
The argurment in this discussion is that God extends "grace" to all without distinction, but in fact that is far from the teachings of Calvin.
On the contrary, Calvin taught that God hates the reprobate! Calvin, Institutes, 3.24.17; OS, 4:431.

Those that really know calvin, know that he taught clearly and plainly that God hates the non elect, the
reprobate whom He has not elected to salvation. This is found and clearly taught in Calvin, Institutes,
3.24.17:
< style="font-family: arial;">
Calvins Institues, Book 3, Chapter 24, Section 17:

1. But that the subject may be more fully illustrated, we must treat both of the calling of the
elect, and of the blinding and hardening of the ungodly. The former I have already in some measure
discussed (chap. 22, sec. 10, 11), when refuting the error of those who think that the general terms
in which the promises are made place the whole human race on a level. The special election which
otherwise would remain hidden in God, he at length manifests by his calling. “For whom he did
foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son.” Moreover, “whom
he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified,” that he may
one day glorify (Rom. 8:29, 30). Though the Lord, by electing his people, adopted them as his sons,
we, however, see that they do not come into possession of this great good until they are called; but
when called, the enjoyment of their election is in some measure communicated to them. For which
reason the Spirit which they receive is termed by Paul both the “Spirit of adoption,” and the “seal”
and “earnest” of the future inheritance; because by his testimony he confirms and seals the certainty
of future adoption on their hearts. For although the preaching of the gospel springs from the fountain
of election, yet being common to them with the reprobate, it would not be in itself a solid proof.
God, however, teaches his elect effectually when he brings them to faith, as we formerly quoted
from the words of our Savior, “Not that any man has seen the Father, save he which is of God, he
has seen the Father,” (John 6:46). Again, “I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou
gavest me out of the world,” (John 17:6). He says in another passage, “No man can come to me,
except the Father which has sent me draw him,” (John 6:44). This passage Augustine ably expounds
in these words: “If (as Truth says) every one who has learned comes, then every one who does not
come has not learned. It does not therefore follows that he who can come does come, unless he
have willed and done it; but every one who has learned of the Father, not only can come, but also
comes; the antecedence of possibility50 500 the affection of will, and the effect of action being now
present,” (August. de Grat. Chr. Cont. Pelag., Lib. 1, c. 14, 31). In another passage, he says still
more clearly, “What means, Every one that has heard and learned of the Father comes unto me,
but just that there is no one who hears and learns of the Father that does not come to me? For if
every one who has heard and learned, comes; assuredly every one who does not come, has neither
heard nor learned of the Father: for if he had heard and learned, he would come. Far removed from
carnal sense is this school in which the Father is heard and teaches us to come to the Son,” (August.
de Prædes. Sanct. c. 8). Shortly after, he says, “This grace, which is secretly imparted to the hearts
of men, is not received by any hard heart; for the reason for which it is given is, that the hardness
of the heart may first be taken away. Hence, when the Father is heard within, he takes away the
stony heart, and gives a heart of flesh. Thus he makes them sons of promise and vessels of mercy,
which he has prepared for glory. Why then does he not teach all to come to Christ, but just because
all whom he teaches he teaches in mercy, while those whom he teaches not he teaches not in
judgment? for he pities whom he will, and hardens whom he will.” Those, therefore, whom God
has chosen he adopts as sons, while he becomes to them a Father. By calling, moreover, he admits
them to his family, and unites them to himself, that they may be one with him. When calling is thus
added to election, the Scripture plainly intimates that nothing is to be looked for in it but the free
mercy of God. For if we ask whom it is he calls, and for what reason, he answers, it is those whom
he had chosen. When we come to election, mercy alone everywhere appears; and, accordingly, in
this the saying of Paul is truly realized, “So then, it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth,
but of God that showeth mercy,” (Rom. 9:16); and that not as is commonly understood by those
who share the result between the grace of God and the will and agency of man. For their exposition
is, that the desire and endeavor of sinners are of no avail by themselves, unless accompanied by
the grace of God, but that when aided by his blessing, they also do their part in procuring salvation.
This cavil I prefer refuting in the words of Augustine rather than my own: “If all that the apostle
meant is, that it is not alone of him that willeth, or of him that runneth, unless the Lord be present
in mercy, we may retort and hold the converse, that it is not of mercy alone, unless willing and
running be present,” (August. Enchir. ad Laurent., c. 31). But if this is manifestly impious, let us
have no doubt that the apostle attributes all to the mercy of the Lord, and leaves nothing to our
wills or exertions. Such were the sentiments of that holy man. I set not the value of a straw on the
subtlety to which they have recourse—viz. that Paul would not have spoken thus had there not been
some will and effort on our part. For he considered not what might be in man; but seeing that certain
persons ascribed a part of salvation to the industry of man, he simply condemned their error in the
former clause, and then claimed the whole substance of salvation for the divine mercy. And what
else do the prophets than perpetually proclaim the free calling of God?
2. Moreover, this is clearly demonstrated by the nature and dispensation of calling, which
consists not merely of the preaching of the word, but also of the illumination of the Spirit. Who
those are to whom God offers his word is explained by the prophet, “I am sought of them that asked
not for me: I am found of them that sought me not: I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation
that was not called by my name,” (Isaiah 65:1). And lest the Jews should think that that mercy
applied only to the Gentiles, he calls to their remembrance whence it was he took their father
Abraham when he condescended to be his friend (Isaiah 41:8); namely, from the midst of idolatry,
in which he was plunged with all his people. When he first shines with the light of his word on the
undeserving, he gives a sufficiently clear proof of his free goodness. Here, therefore, boundless
goodness is displayed, but not so as to bring all to salvation, since a heavier judgment awaits the
reprobate for rejecting the evidence of his love. God also, to display his own glory, withholds from
them the effectual agency of his Spirit. Therefore, this inward calling is an infallible pledge of
salvation. Hence the words of John, “Hereby we know that he abideth in us by the Spirit which he
has given us,” (1 John 3:24). And lest the flesh should glory, in at least responding to him, when
he calls and spontaneously offers himself, he affirms that there would be no ears to hear, no eyes
to see, did not he give them. And he acts not according to the gratitude of each, but according to
his election. Of this you have a striking example in Luke, when the Jews and Gentiles in common
heard the discourse of Paul and Barnabas. Though they were all instructed in the same word, it is
said, that “as many as were ordained to eternal life believed,” (Acts 13:48). How can we deny that
calling is gratuitous, when election alone reigns in it even to its conclusion?
3. Two errors are here to be avoided. Some make man a fellow-worker with God in such a
sense, that man’s suffrage ratifies election, so that, according to them, the will of man is superior
to the counsel of God. As if Scripture taught that only the power of being able to believe is given
us, and not rather faith itself. Others, although they do not so much impair the grace of the Holy
Spirit, yet, induced by what means I know not, make election dependent on faith, as if it were
doubtful and ineffectual till confirmed by faith. There can be no doubt, indeed, that in regard to us
it is so confirmed. Moreover, we have already seen, that the secret counsel of God, which lay
concealed, is thus brought to light, by this nothing more being understood than that that which was
unknown is proved, and as it were sealed. But it is false to say that election is then only effectual
after we have embraced the gospel, and that it thence derives its vigor. It is true that we must there
look for its certainty, because, if we attempt to penetrate to the secret ordination of God, we shall
be engulfed in that profound abyss. But when the Lord has manifested it to us, we must ascend
higher in order that the effect may not bury the cause. For what can be more absurd and unbecoming,
than while Scripture teaches that we are illuminated as God has chosen us, our eyes should be so
dazzled with the brightness of this light, as to refuse to attend to election? Meanwhile, I deny not
that, in order to be assured of our salvation, we must begin with the word, and that our confidence
ought to go no farther than the word when we invoke God the Father. For some to obtain more
certainty of the counsel of God (which is nigh us in our mouth, and in our heart, Deut. 30:14),
absurdly desire to fly above the clouds. We must, therefore, curb that temerity by the soberness of
faith, and be satisfied to have God as the witness of his hidden grace in the external word; provided
always that the channel in which the water flows, and out of which we may freely drink, does not
prevent us from paying due honor to the fountain.
4. Therefore as those are in error who make the power of election dependent on the faith by
which we perceive that we are elected, so we shall follow the best order, if, in seeking the certainty
of our election, we cleave to those posterior signs which are sure attestations to it. Among the
temptations with which Satan assaults believers, none is greater or more perilous, than when
disquieting them with doubts as to their election, he at the same time stimulates them with a depraved
desire of inquiring after it out of the proper way. (See Luther in Genes. cap. 26). By inquiring out
of the proper way, I mean when puny man endeavors to penetrate to the hidden recesses of the
divine wisdom, and goes back even to the remotest eternity, in order that he may understand what
final determination God has made with regard to him. In this way he plunges headlong into an
immense abyss, involves himself in numberless inextricable snares, and buries himself in the thickest
darkness. For it is right that the stupidity of the human mind should be punished with fearful
destruction, whenever it attempts to rise in its own strength to the height of divine wisdom. And
this temptation is the more fatal, that it is the temptation to which of all others almost all of us are
most prone. For there is scarcely a mind in which the thought does not sometimes rise, Whence
your salvation but from the election of God? But what proof have you of your election? When once
this thought has taken possession of any individual, it keeps him perpetually miserable, subjects
him to dire torment, or throws him into a state of complete stupor. I cannot wish a stronger proof
of the depraved ideas, which men of this description form of predestination, than experience itself
furnishes, since the mind cannot be infected by a more pestilential error than that which disturbs
the conscience, and deprives it of peace and tranquillity in regard to God. Therefore, as we dread
shipwreck, we must avoid this rock, which is fatal to every one who strikes upon it. And though
the discussion of predestination is regarded as a perilous sea, yet in sailing over it the navigation
is calm and safe, nay pleasant, provided we do not voluntarily court danger. For as a fatal abyss
engulfs those who, to be assured of their election, pry into the eternal counsel of God without the
word, yet those who investigate it rightly, and in the order in which it is exhibited in the word, reap
from it rich fruits of consolation.

So then, Why does Calvin did not believe that God truly extends, intends, or in any way offers salcation to the
reprobate, those whom God has not elected to salvation? Because Calvin himself says that in 1 John 2:2,
God only has the elect in mind. Furthermore, Calvin states that "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."Calvin, Comm. I John 2:2: CO, 55:310; CTS Catholic Epistles, 173.

1Jo 2:2 (KJV) "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. "

Here are Calvins comments on this passage from his commentary on 1 John 2:2
"And not for ours only. He added this for the sake of amplifying, in order that the faithful might be assured that the expiation made by Christ, extends to all who by faith embrace the gospel. Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated? I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this 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."

Clearly, not only did Calvin NOT teach and sufficient/efficient atonement, he likewise clearly denies a universal atonement. Calvin clearly
states that the atonement "... does not include the reprobate...."and likewise "...extend salvation to all the reprobate..."


Calvin further refutes this idea of a universal atonement in His work "Clear Explanation of Sound Doctrine concerning the True Partaking of the Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Holy Supper (1561), CO, 9:484; English translation in Calvin: Theological Treatises, ed. J.K.S. Reid (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1954), 285. And I quote "I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ which was not crucified for them, and how they can drink the blood which was not shed to expiate their sins?" Is there any question now that Calvin in no way taught a universal atonement for all men, that Christ does not offer a universal call of salvation to the reprobate, and that Christ does not sincerely desire the salvation of the reprobate? Anyone who is truly familiar with the writings of Calvin will say surely not!"






So in conclusion, since there is not a single person who is drawn to the father that is not influenced by God, I ask then how then does God
not draw each and every man to himself, if infact, as it was put forward last night on paltalk, if God sincerely desires and offers
salvation to all men, even though God himself has not decreed their election, nor their effectual call? Clearly, it means then that
in John 3:16, Calvin is speaking of all classes, races, kinds, and types of men and women to be saved. Christ does not sincerely
offer salvation to all mankind, not did Christ make a universal atonement conditioned on their faith and repentance. Calvin then rightly interpreted clearly taught this no where.

[stevelco]

Hi john 6-37.

I presented the quote from Calvin on John 3:16 in order to prove that Calvin taught that the gospel is offered to all and that all are invited to repent and believe the gospel. Calvin is, or should be, persuasvie authority (not final or decisive authority, but persuasive authority) for Christians who care about the truth, and especially for Calvinists. So though Calvin is not our final authority, we ought to take his words seriously.

The quotation from Calvin's comment on John 3:16 is fairly clear on its face. Your comments don't really deal with Calvin's comment on John 3:16, but deal with his comments in other places and on different issues. Much of what you posted is irrelevant to the question. The question is this: did Calvin teach that the gospel is offered to all men? Here is the quote from Calvin: "he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life." It could not be more plain.

You offer as proof to the contrary the idea that Calvin taught that God hates the nonelect. I will stipulate that this is true. God does hate the nonelect. In fact, he hates all workers of iniquity. Psalm 5:5. Even so, Calvin taught that God offers the gospel to all men indiscriminately, even to unbelievers, "both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers." Unbelievers could not have their excuses cut off, under Calvin's argument, if the offer were not made to unbelievers.

You quote at length from Calvin's Institutes. I will give brief answers to the sentences and phrases that you put in bold type.

Your quote from Calvin: "when refuting the error of those who think that the general terms in which the promises are made place the whole human race on a level." That the gospel is offered to all does not place the whole human race on a level. The statement is irrelevant to whether God has offered the gospel to all indiscriminately, as Calvin taught.

Your quote from Calvin: "God, however, teaches his elect effectually when he brings them to faith, as we formerly quoted from the words of our Savior, “Not that any man has seen the Father, save he which is of God, he has seen the Father,” (John 6:46). Again, “I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world,” (John 17:6). He says in another passage, “No man can come to me, except the Father which has sent me draw him,” (John 6:44)." In this quote, Calvin is talking about the effectual call ("teaches his elect effectually"). The offer of the gospel is the outward call. Different issues.

Your quote from Calvin: "Why then does he not teach all to come to Christ, but just because all whom he teaches he teaches in mercy, while those whom he teaches not he teaches not in judgment?" Again, this quote from Calvin is about the effectual (or inward) call, not the outward call. The gospel is offered to all outwardly; it is not offered to all effectually. Again, the quote is irrelevant.

Your quote from Calvin: "that not as is commonly understood by those who share the result between the grace of God and the will and agency of man. For their exposition is, that the desire and endeavor of sinners are of no avail by themselves, unless accompanied by the grace of God, but that when aided by his blessing, they also do their part in procuring salvation." Calvin clearly did not teach that salvation is shared between the grace of God and the will and agency of man. And I am not saying that he taught that. I am only saying that Calvin taught that the gospel is offered to all, indiscriminately. This is clear. Again, the quote is irrelevant to the issue.

Your quote from Calvin: "Here, therefore, boundless goodness is displayed, but not so as to bring all to salvation, since a heavier judgment awaits the reprobate for rejecting the evidence of his love." Quite right. Though God is good to all, that does not mean that all are elect or that all will be saved. This quotation supports my position.

Your quote from Calvin: "Two errors are here to be avoided. Some make man a fellow-worker with God in such a sense, that man’s suffrage ratifies election, so that, according to them, the will of man is superior to the counsel of God. As if Scripture taught that only the power of being able to believe is given us, and not rather faith itself. Others, although they do not so much impair the grace of the Holy Spirit, yet, induced by what means I know not, make election dependent on faith, as if it were doubtful and ineffectual till confirmed by faith." I am not saying that Calvin taught the errors mentioned here. Again the quotation is irrelevant. Calvin taught that the gospel is offered to all men indiscrimnately, not that man's suffrage ratifies election or that election is dependent on faith.

Your quote from Calvin: "But it is false to say that election is then only effectual after we have embraced the gospel, and that it thence derives its vigor." Again, I am not saying that, and I am not saying that Calvin taught that. I am only saying that Calvin taught that the gospel is offered to all men indiscriminately.

Your quote from Calvin: "Therefore as those are in error who make the power of election dependent on the faith by which we perceive that we are elected, so we shall follow the best order, if, in seeking the certainty of our election, we cleave to those posterior signs which are sure attestations to it." Again, I am not saying that election depends on faith. Irrelevant. I am saying that Calvin taught (as he plainly did ... just read the quote) that the gospel is offered indiscriminately to all.

Your quote from Calvin: "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." This is from Calvin's comment to I John 2:2. He is speaking here of actual salvation, not the offer of salvation. Calvin clearly taught that the gospel is offered to all. He vigorously denies that all men are actually saved.

Your conclusion: Is there any question now that Calvin in no way taught a universal atonement for all men, that Christ does not offer a universal call of salvation to the reprobate, and that Christ does not sincerely desire the salvation of the reprobate? Anyone who is truly familiar with the writings of Calvin will say surely not!" First, the question is not all of those things. The question is only whether Christ makes a universal call of salvation to all men. On that point, perhaps you are familiar with Calvin's comment to Romans 5:18. I'll quote it; first Calvin's translation of the verse in English, then an excerpt from his comment:

"18. Therefore, as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. * * *

" He does not say the righteousness ... but the justification ... of Christ, in order to remind us that he was not as an individual just for himself, but that the righteousness with which he was endued reached farther, in order that, by conferring this gift, he might enrich the faithful. He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him."

Notice here the distinction between "propounded" and "extended". "Propounded" means: To put forward for consideration; set forth. Calvin distinguishes between the propounding, or setting forth ... or offer, if you will ... of justification and the extension of justification in reality. It is propounded to all but not in reality extended to all. That is the difference between the outward call of the gospel and the effectual call of the gospel. Notice that justification, according to Calvin, is offered to all, and many do not receive him. This surely answers the cavil that Calvin intended for us to understand him as saying that the gospel is offered to all "classes, races, kinds, and types of men and women." No, the gospel is offered indiscriminately to all, even though not all receive him.

As an aside, notice that Calvin says here that Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world.

Steve.

[wildboar]

Stevelco:

I have no argument with what you have stated thus far so long as the term "offer" is properly understood. Calvin of course wrote in Latin and the English word offer has a broader meaning than the Latin word offere does. In Latin the word offere generally has the meaning of "to present." In English the word offer often implies some sort of willingness on the part of the one presenting that the receiver accept whatever is being offered. This connotation is not present in the meaning of the Latin and the idea of God desiring the salvation of all who come in contact with the Gospel is denied by Calvin. This is also the case with the Westminster Standards. The Westminster Confession also uses the term "offer" in the sense of "to present" to read it in terms of the modern idea of the well-meant offer is neo-orthodox.

[disciple]

Stevelco:

I have no argument with what you have stated thus far so long as the term "offer" is properly understood. Calvin of course wrote in Latin and the English word offer has a broader meaning than the Latin word offere does. In Latin the word offere generally has the meaning of "to present." In English the word offer often implies some sort of willingness on the part of the one presenting that the receiver accept whatever is being offered. This connotation is not present in the meaning of the Latin and the idea of God desiring the salvation of all who come in contact with the Gospel is denied by Calvin. This is also the case with the Westminster Standards. The Westminster Confession also uses the term "offer" in the sense of "to present" to read it in terms of the modern idea of the well-meant offer is neo-orthodox.

i know you have stated this before but could you please provide an example of this from the writings of calvin? and could you verify that it was in latin and not french (would this same semantic range apply to french as well, i.e., that it can only mean "to present")? thanks

[stevelco]

Wildboar:

What is the Latin word for "invite"? Calvin taught this: "yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ...." This invitation, which is given to all men, is the evidence by which God shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world. Calvin is surely not saying that God merely presents the gospel to men with no desire that they (even the non-elect) receive and believe it. As he taught in his comment to Romans 5:18, the "offer" to all is rooted in God's goodness. As Paul said to the stubborn unbelieving Jews, "the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance".

Steve

[disciple]

As an aside, notice that Calvin says here that Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world.

but of course calvin could not have meant this!!! surely he really meant something entirely different! i say this tongue-in-cheek. it is quite humorous to see what people do with calvin (not to mention Scripture). i can't find the quote but i was reading "how to read the bible for all its worth" the other day and something hit me. the gist of it was that he said that most people don't seem genuinely interested in the finding out what the passage really says (i.e., the truth) but are rather interested in finding how they can answer the opponent or get around the other interpretations. this is what i find all too often here. we want so bad to have calvin (insert any personality here, including God) be our champion that we do whatever we can to make it so.

one reaction you get is those who bury their heads in the sand and claim that he wasn't really saying what he clearly seems to be saying and then immediately flee to a bunch of other verses and quotations to prove their case. another reaction is those who believe that calvin said what it seems he plainly said and then turn around and declare calvin (or any other favorite personality) a heretic who was sorely mistaken here.

it is a shame that this seems to be the main characteristic of Christian forums. why can't we just be honest and admit that everything is not exactly as we would like it and that we really don't have everything figured out? anyway, i'm just growing tired of it. i can see why rob over at antithesis shut down his forums. it is a joke.

anyway, here are some links of interest on this subject for those interested:

http://www.geocities.com/cfpchurch/calvinismindex.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Calvin_and_Calvinism/

[stevelco]

Hi Disciple. You said:

most people don't seem genuinely interested in the finding out what the passage really says (i.e., the truth) but are rather interested in finding how they can answer the opponent or get around the other interpretations.

I couldn't agree more. I believe this attitude is at the root of the vast majority of Biblical and theological investigation. May I emphasize vast? Vast.

Steve.

[lionovjudah]

but of course calvin could not have meant this!!! surely he really meant something entirely different! i say this tongue-in-cheek. it is quite humorous to see what people do with calvin (not to mention Scripture). i can't find the quote but i was reading "how to read the bible for all its worth" the other day and something hit me. the gist of it was that he said that most people don't seem genuinely interested in the finding out what the passage really says (i.e., the truth) but are rather interested in finding how they can answer the opponent or get around the other interpretations. this is what i find all too often here. we want so bad to have calvin (insert any personality here, including God) be our champion that we do whatever we can to make it so.

You crack me up Doug. Excellent rant......Amen to everythign youre saying

one reaction you get is those who bury their heads in the sand and claim that he wasn't really saying what he clearly seems to be saying and then immediately flee to a bunch of other verses and quotations to prove their case. another reaction is those who believe that calvin said what it seems he plainly said and then turn around and declare calvin (or any other favorite personality) a heretic who was sorely mistaken here.

it is a shame that this seems to be the main characteristic of Christian forums. why can't we just be honest and admit that everything is not exactly as we would like it and that we really don't have everything figured out? anyway, i'm just growing tired of it. i can see why rob over at antithesis shut down his forums. it is a joke.

anyway, here are some links of interest on this subject for those interested:

http://www.geocities.com/cfpchurch/calvinismindex.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Calvin_and_Calvinism/

WOOOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If we admitted that disciple, then we may become damned, dont you get it? hahahaha. People make the bible fit their theology. Or better yet fit someone elses theology. Dont you know that God, the Creator, Sustainer of all is insecure and needs us grasshoppers to defend Him? If I had a dome for everytime I have heard someone say, "He didnt mean that!!!" I would be rich. Oh God didnt mean that. Then we do the context dance and plater 10 other verses to back up our position. I know context is important and one verse a theology does not make, but every, and I mean EVERY single time a verse pops up we discrd it either with the context excuse or deducing some linguistic gymnastics or blantantly say it doesnt mean what it says. I am sick of it too. Why cant God have 2 truths be true? Why cant God have to extremes be true? Paul addresses this in one of his letters, I forget which one about people earguing about words. Thats what we do. Chrsit said, "Sell all you have and give to the poor"... Well He didnt mean that because if He did then that is too much liberation theology. Christ said,"If you love me then OBEY ME".. Well He didnt mean that because then obedience would somehow be related to working for our own salvation. Christ said,"All who believe and are baptised will be saved" Well He didnt mean that because baptism is not part of the order of salvation. Christ COMMANDED us to preach the gospel to every creature teaching them everything I have told you." Well He didnt mean that He meant preach to all the regenerate. Chrsit said in John 6 39-40, where He explicitly reveals the will of the Father,

39"This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of (BD)all that He has given Me I (BE)lose nothing, but (BF)raise it up on the last day. 40"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who (BG)beholds the Son and (BH)believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will (BI)raise him up on the last day."

Notice the distinction between the 2 verses. verse 39 speaks from Gods Sovereignty, verse 40 speaks about man. There is no qualifying verse 40 with an addition of, "But you will not behold me and believe in me because i have hardned you. Let Scripture say what it says and stop twisting it to fit our peanut brains.

Or what about in Isaiah "Look to me and be ye saved ALL the ends of the earth, for I am God and there is no other".... All it says is to look, nothing else, not one other point is made. Just like when they were commanded to just look at the snake and be saved, there was nothing else added, nothing at all.

I am with you disciple, Just read it and study it together. We bring our eisegesis and prejudice into everythign we do and I admit that. But we must be open to the fact that we do not know everything. I was reading some other threads and this WHS character had the gall to say his theology was perfect, 100% full understanding of the whole Gospel.... My initial reaction was to reach out and choke him, then I relaxed and pitied his soul. I have read alot on the relationship between George Whitefield and John Wesley. They debated with fervor. but with love...Some consider Whitefield a traitor because of this. We have a piece of plywood in front of our eyes and have the nerve to become an optometrist for our brother who has the tiniest sliver in his eye. I have to stop before i say something mean. hahahahahahaha
Learnig to bite my tongue and listen to the Holy Spirit restraining my crassness...


Joe

[Brandan Kraft]

I guarantee you I interpret the Bible to fit my systematic! Why is this seen as a bad thing? It's as if some of you are suggesting that embracing paradox is a virtue! I believe the Bible should be a harmonizing book - it IS! I am very interested in what every passage has to say, bit if it seems out of line with the rest of what I believe, I must apply the analogy of faith upon that passage and interpret in light of the rest of Scripture. I'm sorry, but logic and reason must not be thrown out. I believe that God's logic and the logic of men are qualitatively identical - I'm not suggesting we can understand everything quantitatively, but we can understand God's revealed word and have it rest in our minds qualitatively.

[lionovjudah]

I guarantee you I interpret the Bible to fit my systematic! Why is this seen as a bad thing? It's as if some of you are suggesting that embracing paradox is a virtue! I believe the Bible should be a harmonizing book - it IS! I am very interested in what every passage has to say, bit if it seems out of line with the rest of what I believe, I must apply the analogy of faith upon that passage and interpret in light of the rest of Scripture. I'm sorry, but logic and reason must not be thrown out. I believe that God's logic and the logic of men are qualitatively identical - I'm not suggesting we can understand everything quantitatively, but we can understand God's revealed word and have it rest in our minds qualitatively.

I am not suggesting emracing paradox is a virtue. I am saying if God presents it, it cannot be dismissed. I do not even know what that woudl entail. But I have issue with interpreting to fit your systematic. why not have your systematic be revealed by Scripture? We are not to start with a systematic then look at scriptuire, it must be the other way around? That is the problem with systematic theology. I agree withthe premise, but our systematic becomes Gospel and that is wrong. We can understand Gods revealed word, but not completely Logic must not be thrown out, but we must not also, draw logical conclusions to where God has not spoken and make them dogma. I love the praodoxes in Scripture, it makes me Glorify God more. God is Sovereign, but we reap what we sew.... I have abosolutle no issue with it at all. Why should I try to wield it together to fit my understanding? Christ commands us to repent, but I cant until given the grace.... I love it.. I love it all. But still I am commanded to do it. Brandan, I have learned from you and I thank you for that, but I am gleaning Boaz's field when I read you and others in here.

The bible is a harmonizing book, but when I cant harmonize passages, I dont scream context or linguistic gymnastics to spiritualize what may not be intended. I would much rather sit at the feet of our master and admit my feeble undestanding than search the scriptures thinking in them I have life...


Joe

[stevelco]

Darth Gill said:

I believe that God's logic and the logic of men are qualitatively identical - I'm not suggesting we can understand everything quantitatively, but we can understand God's revealed word and have it rest in our minds qualitatively.

I couldn't agree more. Absolutely Amen. I reject contradictions. The only problem is that some of us insist on holding on to imagined contradictions when someone else has resolved them.

Steve.

[lionovjudah]

Darth Gill said:
I couldn't agree more. Absolutely Amen. I reject contradictions. The only problem is that some of us insist on holding on to imagined contradictions when someone else has resolved them.

Steve.

What contradictions? Are there specific ones youre speaking of? WHat if we are wrong in our intepretation? My humility leads me to never declare a mental assent to anythign without faith. An atheist could mentally assent to understanding the trinity by reading. I could learn Calculous if I studied hard and long enough. There are many learned people who could argue every tidbit doctrine under the sun, but have no newness of life. They could spout off chapter and verse, with no wlking in the new creation. Look at Paul. Here was a man of God. A Jew of Jews, Pharassee of Pharasses, but was on the wrong course and until converted by Sovereign grace, was persecuting the Lord He thought He was helping. I see no logic used at all in scripture... no deducing by God. Just plain Inspired Word. Look at what Christ had to say to those who thought they knew everything...

joe

[disciple]

Darth Gill said:
I couldn't agree more. Absolutely Amen. I reject contradictions. The only problem is that some of us insist on holding on to imagined contradictions when someone else has resolved them.

or when we imagine contradictions or run into contradictions as a result of our construct/grid/systematic (i.e., they become contradictions because we have set up our particular set of presuppositions as a sort of golden calf) and then attempt to resolve these imagined contradictions as if they were real.

i too believe that God is a God of order who is not contradictory in the least bit. but we must make sure that we allow for such things as paradox (which is an apparent or perceived contradiction, not an actual contradiction) and mystery (we are unable to fully understand) on our part in regard to our comprehension. otherwise we end up forming a god in our own image (thinking that God's logic is our logic and everyone else on our team). this is what i find occurs most often.

we give heavy emphasis to the fact that God is a logical being and then proceed to equate His logic with ours (rather than conforming ours to His). we must always understand that God's ways are not our ways and God's thoughts are not our thoughts (Isaiah 55:8). we must admit our inability to see clearly and the deceitful of sin. if we fail to do this, we overestimate ourselves and we take the place of God (pretending that we are His sole appointed messengers). this is a very dangerous place to be.

[lionovjudah]

or when we imagine contradictions or run into contradictions as a result of our construct/grid/systematic (i.e., they become contradictions because we have set up our particular set of presuppositions as a sort of golden calf) and then attempt to resolve these imagined contradictions as if they were real.

i too believe that God is a God of order who is not contradictory in the least bit. but we must make sure that we allow for such things as paradox (which is an apparent or perceived contradiction, not an actual contradiction) and mystery (we are unable to fully understand) on our part in regard to our comprehension. otherwise we end up forming a god in our own image (thinking that God's logic is our logic and everyone else on our team). this is what i find occurs most often.

we give heavy emphasis to the fact that God is a logical being and then proceed to equate His logic with ours (rather than conforming ours to His). we must always understand that God's ways are not our ways and God's thoughts are not our thoughts (Isaiah 55:8). we must admit our inability to see clearly and the deceitful of sin. if we fail to do this, we overestimate ourselves and we take the place of God (pretending that we are His sole appointed messengers). this is a very dangerous place to be.

And all of Gods people said AMEN DOug... I could not have said it better... Obviously by reading my posts...hahahahaha When we use our logic to conclude where God has not shed light, that is a dangerous position. God is not a God of Confusion, But Great is the mystery as Paul exclaimed. And to be humble enough to admit that is a hard thing to do. Because we feel SPECIALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL when we teach. We have the knowledge, and all who disagree are blinded... SHAME!!!!!!!!!

Joe

[Brandan Kraft]

i too believe that God is a God of order who is not contradictory in the least bit. but we must make sure that we allow for such things as paradox (which is an apparent or perceived contradiction, not an actual contradiction)

I couldn't disagree more. A perceived contradiction is a contradiction - I believe God is not the author of confusion, and if I come across such a contradiction, I'm going to wrestle and struggle with the Scriptures until God frees me to sublime harmony! This is a great lie of modern theology in my opinion, and has resulted in more of an emphasis on language and exegesis skills rather than fine tuning a systematic theology. I'm not saying language and exegesis skills are unimportant - just that they should be seen only as tools to help you come to a fuller understanding rather than be used to create doctrines which stand contradictory to one another. Further attempts to harmonize these perceived contradictions is frowned upon because one might violate the rules of "exegetical" theology.

[Brandan Kraft]

(we are unable to fully understand) on our part in regard to our comprehension. otherwise we end up forming a god in our own image (thinking that God's logic is our logic and everyone else on our team). this is what i find occurs most often.

Well if God's logic is not our logic, how are we to understand Him?

[disciple]

I couldn't disagree more. A perceived contradiction is a contradiction - I believe God is not the author of confusion, and if I come across such a contradiction, I'm going to wrestle and struggle with the Scriptures until God frees me to sublime harmony!

so what happens if someone else believes that they have come to sublime harmony and it doesn't agree with your harmony? who is the standard? obviously, each of the persons will think that it is certainly the other person who is out of harmony. we have each become a standard unto ourselves and everyone else. our thinking becomes the litmus test for all that is true and godly and orthodox and everything else that does not accord with it is labelled as heresy. this is what i'm talking about. if you can't understand this, then i don't what else to say.

[stevelco]

Darth Gill said:

I couldn't disagree more. A perceived contradiction is a contradiction

Nothing could be further from the truth. Just because one person believes there is a contradiction, it does not mean that he has perceived accurately. And what might appear to be contradictory with limited information might be resolved with the addition of better or further information. Much of growth in theology is the addition of information that brings understanding to previously cloudy issues.

Lionovjudah asked:

What contradictions? Are there specific ones youre speaking of?

I don't know. Darth Gill is raising the objection about paradox. I don't know what he has in mind exactly. I could guess, but I would rather not suggest possible contradictions so as not to waste my time. I agree in principle that we ought to strive to resolve contradictions. Sometimes this requires effort.

I don't agree that Calvin was proposing paradoxes or contradictions in his understanding of John 3:16. That is a ploy of the desperate.

Steve.

[disciple]

Well if God's logic is not our logic, how are we to understand Him?

whose the our? by our do you mean yours? this is what i'm talking about. it's like you don't see any way in which your knowledge might be incomplete, your ability to comprehend might be limited, you might be deceived by sin, you might be wrong, you might not be seeing clearly, etc. the immediate conclusion is that everyone else is a confused heretic yet we see clearly. we're so egocentric that we can't even fathom that we might be wrong or might not have the correct understanding. do you not understand at all what i'm saying??

[Brandan Kraft]

whose the our? by our do you mean yours?

Yes.

this is what i'm talking about. it's like you don't see any way in which your knowledge might be incomplete,

Not true - I don't know everything!

your ability to comprehend might be limited, you might be deceived by sin, you might be wrong, you might not be seeing clearly, etc.

True.

the immediate conclusion is that everyone else is a confused heretic yet we see clearly.

Huh? Where did that come from? I disagree with all kinds of people on a variety of biblical topics, that doesn't necessarily mean they're heretics.

we're so egocentric that we can't even fathom that we might be wrong or might not have the correct understanding. do you not understand at all what i'm saying??

OH I understand. However, the basic rules of logic can be derived from Scripture as can our basic rules for mathematics. One of the best textbooks for learning ever written is the Bible. Also, how do you interpret such passages that suggest that we have the mind of Christ? If I have the mind of Christ, that leads me to conclude that I can think with His logic also!

1 Cor 2:16, (KJV), For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.