Monsieur Calvin and UN-Limited Atonement?

[Guest]

Reading through Ro9bert Shank's "Elect in The Son", I've come across this interesting quote from Calvin:

Georgius imagines himself to argue very cleverly when he says, "Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. Therefore, those who would exclude the reprobate from a participation in the benefits of Christ, must, of necessity, place them somewhere out of the world." Now we will not permit the common solution of this question to avail on the present occasion, which would have it that Christ suffered sufficiently for all men, but effectually for His elect alone. This great absurdity, by which our monk has procured for himself so much applause amongst his own fraternity, has no weight whatever with me. John does indeed extend the benefits of the atonement of Christ, which was completed by His death, to all the elect of God throughout what climes of the world soever they may be scattered. But though the case be so, it by no means alters the fact that the reprobate are mingled with the elect in the world. It is also a fact, without controversy, that Christ came to atone for the sins "of the whole world." But the solution of all difficulty is immediately at hand, in the truth and fact, that it is "whosoever believeth in Him" that "shall not perish, but shall have eternal life." For our present question is, not what the power or virtue of Christ is, nor what efficacy it has in itself, but who those are to whom He gives Himself to be enjoyed. Now if the possession of Christ stands in faith, and if faith flows from the Spirit of adoption, it follows that he alone is numbered of God among His children who is designed of God to be a partaker of Christ. Indeed, the evangelist John sets forth the office of Christ to be none other than that of "gathering together all the children of God" in one by His death. From all which we conclude that although reconciliation is offered unto all men through Him, yet, that the great benefit belongs peculiarly to the elect, that they might be "gathered together" and be made "together" partakers of eternal life.
A TREATISE OF THE ETERNAL PREDESTINATION OF GOD ETC., ETC.
Section VI: http://www.the-highway.com/Calvin_sectionVI.html (About six paragraphs down)

It sounds like he's saying, "Yes, Jesus died for all men everywhere, however, only some of these men have actually been given the ability to exercise faith in Jesus so as to enjoy the benefits of this death." Is this what Calvin actually believed or was this some abberation on his part which he later 'snappped out of'?

[Guest]

Reading through Ro9bert Shank's "Elect in The Son", I've come across this interesting quote from Calvin:

Georgius imagines himself to argue very cleverly when he says, "Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. Therefore, those who would exclude the reprobate from a participation in the benefits of Christ, must, of necessity, place them somewhere out of the world." Now we will not permit the common solution of this question to avail on the present occasion, which would have it that Christ suffered sufficiently for all men, but effectually for His elect alone. This great absurdity, by which our monk has procured for himself so much applause amongst his own fraternity, has no weight whatever with me. John does indeed extend the benefits of the atonement of Christ, which was completed by His death, to all the elect of God throughout what climes of the world soever they may be scattered. But though the case be so, it by no means alters the fact that the reprobate are mingled with the elect in the world. It is also a fact, without controversy, that Christ came to atone for the sins "of the whole world." But the solution of all difficulty is immediately at hand, in the truth and fact, that it is "whosoever believeth in Him" that "shall not perish, but shall have eternal life." For our present question is, not what the power or virtue of Christ is, nor what efficacy it has in itself, but who those are to whom He gives Himself to be enjoyed. Now if the possession of Christ stands in faith, and if faith flows from the Spirit of adoption, it follows that he alone is numbered of God among His children who is designed of God to be a partaker of Christ. Indeed, the evangelist John sets forth the office of Christ to be none other than that of "gathering together all the children of God" in one by His death. From all which we conclude that although reconciliation is offered unto all men through Him, yet, that the great benefit belongs peculiarly to the elect, that they might be "gathered together" and be made "together" partakers of eternal life.
A TREATISE OF THE ETERNAL PREDESTINATION OF GOD ETC., ETC.
Section VI: http://www.the-highway.com/Calvin_sectionVI.html (About six paragraphs down)

It sounds like he's saying, "Yes, Jesus died for all men everywhere, however, only some of these men have actually been given the ability to exercise faith in Jesus so as to enjoy the benefits of this death." Is this what Calvin actually believed or was this some abberation on his part which he later 'snappped out of'?

No, Calvin is conveying that:

1) Christ died for "the whole world," (which all Calvinists believe); and
2) In context, "the whole world," refers to the elect from all over the globe;
3) In other words "the whole world," in this context, is to be understood geographically expansively, rather than universally inclusively.

Does that compute?
-Turretinfan

[Guest]

No, Calvin is conveying that:

1) Christ died for "the whole world," (which all Calvinists believe); and
2) In context, "the whole world," refers to the elect from all over the globe;
3) In other words "the whole world," in this context, is to be understood geographically expansively, rather than universally inclusively.

Does that compute?
-Turretinfan

Yes it does. Thanks!

[Guest]

No, Calvin is conveying that:

1) Christ died for "the whole world," (which all Calvinists believe); and
2) In context, "the whole world," refers to the elect from all over the globe;
3) In other words "the whole world," in this context, is to be understood geographically expansively, rather than universally inclusively.

Does that compute?
-Turretinfan

Yes it does. Thanks! A faux pas on my part.

[Guest]

No, Calvin is conveying that:

1) Christ died for "the whole world," (which all Calvinists believe); and
2) In context, "the whole world," refers to the elect from all over the globe;
3) In other words "the whole world," in this context, is to be understood geographically expansively, rather than universally inclusively.

A perfect example of eisegesis.

Robin

[Guest]

No, Calvin is conveying that:

1) Christ died for "the whole world," (which all Calvinists believe); and
2) In context, "the whole world," refers to the elect from all over the globe;
3) In other words "the whole world," in this context, is to be understood geographically expansively, rather than universally inclusively.

A perfect example of eisegesis.

Robin

Robin,
Are you accusing me of reading into Calvin? Or into Scripture? Or accusing Calvin of reading into Scripture?
I'm not sure I get the target of your accusation.
The portion you quote above is a summary of Calvin, and it is an accurate summary of Calvin. We can debate whether Calvin got it right, and that is ultimately a much more important issue, but there is very little question that the three points above are what Calvin believed.
Since I don't present any Scriptural analysis, it would be presumptive to assume that is based on eisegesis.
-Turretinfan

[Guest]

Hello Turretinfan,

Robin,
Are you accusing me of reading into Calvin? Or into Scripture? Or accusing Calvin of reading into Scripture?

It looks like Calvin, and you(if you agree with Calvin) are guilty of reading your views into scripture.

Lets look at the verse in question.

1 John
2:1 My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.
2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world

The only way a Calvinist can reconcile these verses to their view is by change the meaning of "the whole world", and this is how Calvin did it:

1) Christ died for "the whole world," (which all Calvinists believe); and
2) In context, "the whole world," refers to the elect from all over the globe;
3) In other words "the whole world," in this context, is to be understood geographically expansively, rather than universally inclusively.

Clearly this is Calvin using eisegesis.

Turretinfan wrote:

Since I don't present any Scriptural analysis, it would be presumptive to assume that is based on eisegesis.

Sorry if I misunderstood you. Do you agree with Calvin's interpretation of John 2:1-2?

Thank you,
Robin



Robin

[Guest]

Lets look at the verse in question.

1 John
2:1 My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.
2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world

Seems simple to me. John is encouraging them not to sin. He assures them that if they do sin, they have an advocate with the Father, namely Jesus, who died for the sins of all mankind. If they repent of their sin, they will be forgiven, and so will anyone else in the whole world who turns to God in repentance. God is no respector of persons.

We have too many system makers and speculators. Its tough to come to the truth when you have a system or philosophy that the scriptures must be "shoe-horned" into.

[Guest]

Hi Homer,

Seems simple to me. John is encouraging them not to sin. He assures them that if they do sin, they have an advocate with the Father, namely Jesus, who died for the sins of all mankind. If they repent of their sin, they will be forgiven, and so will anyone else in the whole world who turns to God in repentance. God is no respector of persons.

We have too many system makers and speculators. Its tough to come to the truth when you have a system or philosophy that the scriptures must be "shoe-horned" into.

I agree .

[Guest]

Does anyone here see that word "propitiation" in that text?
What seems so simple is simply being ignored!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propitiation

Mark