John Calvin on Mark 14:24

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by icthus, Apr 25, 2005.

  1. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would like all Calvinists on this board, to explain John Calvin's words on Mark 14:24. The verse in question is thus:

    "And He said to them, this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many"

    Here is what Calvin has to say, especially on the use of "many"

    "Mark 14:24. This is my blood. I have already remarked that, when we are told that the blood is to be shed--according to the narrative of Matthew--for the remission of sins, these words direct us to the sacrifice of the death of Christ, without the remembrance of which the Lord's Supper is never observed in a proper manner. And, indeed, it is impossible for believing souls to be satisfied in any other way than by being assured that God is pacified towards them.

    Which is shed for many. By the word many he means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race; for he contrasts many with one; as if he had said, that he will not be the Redeemer of one man only, but will die in order to deliver many from the condemnation of the curse. It must at the same time be observed, however, that by the words for you, as related by Luke--Christ directly addresses the disciples, and exhorts every believer to apply to his own advantage the shedding of blood Therefore, when we approach to the holy table, let us not only remember in general that the world has been redeemed by the blood of Christ, but let every one consider for himself that his own sins have been expiated"

    Did you see his own words on "many", that it refers to "but the whole human race" ? And, " that the world has been redeemed by the blood of Christ "

    So, we have it, John Calvin was NOT a believer of "Limited Atonement". Where, then does the 5 Points of "Calvinism" get its theology from? Should it not be changed to 4 Points?

    :D [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  2. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Remarkably, you would know the answer to this if you have been listening. We have constantly said that "Calvinists" are not followers of Calvin, just as arminians are not followers of Arminus. The names are names for doctrines.

    Calvinism is a name for what people believe about salvation, not what they believe about John Calvin. Arminianism is a name for what people believe about salvation, not what they believe about Arminius?
     
  3. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Larry, coming back to the main point here. Was John Calvin wrong in his clear belief in a Universal Atonement? How come "Clvinists" misrepresent John Calvin, in saying that he taught in Limited Atonement? The so-called "5 points of Calvinism", is wrong, as at least the "L" does not belong to John Calvin's own beliefs, and to say otherwise is plainly wrong.
     
  4. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, I don't think Calvin was wrong, nor am I sure that you characterized it properly.

    But you repeat the same nonsense I already corrected in teh previous post. Why didn't you read what I said? You said that Calvinists are misrepresenting Calvin's views. If you read above, I told you that Calvinism is not about what Calvin believed but rather about what people believe the Bible teaches about salvation. Please get that through your head, and move forward. If you want to discuss what exactly Calvin believed about the atonement, that would be more than fine.
     
  5. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Its in my head allright, Larry. But I am worried that you are not able to understand simple sense?

    Why is it called the "Five Points of Calvinism", if all of these points DO NOT honsetly represent what the man John Calvin taught? The term, "Calvinism" is used to show that what in contained within this phrase, is based on the teachings of John Calvin. Otherwise, if it does not, which clearly is the case, then it is a misrepresentation of John Calvin's techings. I think a kid would understand this. Its like me calling myself a Christian in the ture sense of the word, and yet saying that the Bible do not say that we need to be born-again to go to heaven. When, in fact it clearly does. Likewise the "5 points of Calvinism" DO NOT represent the teachings of the man they are supposed to. Do you now get it?

    BTW, would you agree that Calvin did not believe in limited atonement?
     
  6. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    NOthing to worry about. I understand simple sense just fine.

    Third time in three posts you have made this error. Calvinism is a term for what people believe about salvation. IT existed long before Calvin. His name got attached to it, but Calvinis is not specifically what Calvin taught. It is a name that describes the set of beliefs that people have about salvation. This is why I say Get it through your head. If it were there, as you claim, then you would not be confusing this.

    It is pretended to be what you claim, then it might be, though it would be irrelevant.

    I would hope a kid would at least learn to use the terms properly.

    Yes, I get your point, and you are wrong. To call yourself a Calvinist is not like calling yourself a Christian. A Christian is a follower of Christ. A Calvinist is someone who believes certain things about what Christ taught.

    This is really a silly discussion. It just doesn't matter.

    No, I wouldn't. But to be honest, I don't know enough to talk about it. You don't either, I assume.

    Roger Nicole, in Westminster Theological Journal fall of 85, has an article on John Calvin's View of the Extent of the Atonement. His conclusion is that "Our conclusion, on balance, is that definite atonement fits better than universal grace into the total pattern of Calvin’s teaching." Nicole is a good researcher and author, and his opinions carry weight.

    But the reality is that it doesn't matter, IMO. Perhaps you can tell us why it matters what Calvin beleived? Our discussion here is about what the Bible teaches, not what somebody here or there believed.
     
  7. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Larry, you say:

    "But the reality is that it doesn't matter, IMO. Perhaps you can tell us why it matters what Calvin beleived? Our discussion here is about what the Bible teaches, not what somebody here or there believed."

    Quite simply this. Because the very nature of this discussion is entitled, "Calvinism/Arminianism Debate", which represents the views of both sides. I take it that you would call yourself a Calvinist? And, probably a 5 point Calvinist? If so, then you have a problem, for it is evident from Calvin that he does not teach limited atonement.

    See also Calvin's remarks on Colossians 1:14

    "14. In whom we have redemption. He now proceeds to set forth in order, that all parts of our salvation are contained in Christ, and that he alone ought to shine forth, and to be seen conspicuous above all creatures, inasmuch as he is the beginning and end of all things. In the first place, he says that we have redemption 10 and immediately explains it as meaning the remission of sins; for these two things agree together by apposition. 11For, unquestionably, when God remits our transgressions, he exempts us from condemnation to eternal death. This is our liberty, this our glorying in the face of death -- that our sins are not imputed to us. He says that this redemption was procured through the blood of Christ, for by the sacrifice of his death all the sins of the world have been expiated. Let us, therefore, bear in mind, that this is the sole price of reconciliation, and that all the trifling of Papists as to satisfactions is blasphemy"

    You have to stop calling yourself a Calvinist, if you believe in the 5 points. Just Christian is better.
     
  8. Wes Outwest

    Wes Outwest
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,400
    Likes Received:
    0
    The atonement is universal but Calvin goes on to say that for each individual to accept the truth that his own sins have been expiated.

    That, Larry, is "individual application" of the atonement to one's self, not, as you seem to think a "class application" for the elect! Which by the way is where your belief system is in error.
     
  9. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is absolutely surreal. What is up with you? You have now been told three times (this is the fourth I believe) that "Calvinist" describes what someone believes about salvation, not someone's relationship to John Calvin and his beliefs. Why is that hard for you to grasp? Is this really the best argument you can put forth? It is much weaker than your already weak arguments.

    If you read Nicole's article, you will see that it isn't evident what Calvin taught. I bet you didn't read that you did you ...

    If people like yourself didn't use the term Christian to refer to something I don't believe, I would gladly use it. Calvinist is just another name for Christian, but because some have twisted Christianity to mean something else, we have to define ourselves a little more closely.

    [ April 25, 2005, 04:26 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]
     
  10. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is absolutely surreal. What is up with you? You have now been told three times (this is the fourth I believe) that "Calvinist" describes what someone believes about salvation, not someone's relationship to John Calvin and his beliefs. Why is that hard for you to grasp? Is this really the best argument you can put forth? It is much weaker than your already weak arguments.

    PL, what are you talking about? Calvinism is a doctrine founded on the teaching of John Calvin, hence the name 'calvinism'. Arminianism is founded on his teachings, hence the phrase 'arminianism'.

    calvinist is NOT another name for 'Christian', as Christian is the following of Christ, not Calvin. I find it kind of funny that you even twist what calvinism is and what you want it to be.
     
  11. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Where is the world did you come up with the idea about a "class application"? I don't know of anyone who believes that. The atonement is applied to individuals who believe.

    It is no wonder you guys are so messed up. You keep making up stuff that no one believes. Don't you get tired of that?
     
  12. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is absolutely surreal. What is up with you? You have now been told three times (this is the fourth I believe) that "Calvinist" describes what someone believes about salvation, not someone's relationship to John Calvin and his beliefs. Why is that hard for you to grasp? Is this really the best argument you can put forth? It is much weaker than your already weak arguments.

    Keep your hair on :D

    Why would you need to call yourself a Calvinist anyway? The idea that Calvinism teaches the "doctrines of Grace", as if to say that no one else does, is complete nonsense. You guys are quick to refer to and quote Calvin when he supports you beliefs, but when he says things like Christ died for the human race, you are quick to dismiss this, or ignore it. This is what is known as "having your ears tickled", what Paul spoke of. Instead of honestly facing up to the facts, and admitting that it is gross error to suppose that Calvin every taught Limited Atonement, you attack us for bringing this to your attention, and pretend that you are just plain 'ol Christians after all. How very convenient. What did Paul also say? "always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth". This describes Calvinists down to a T
     
  13. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    No it's not. Calvinism predated Calvin by a long time. Read some history on this.

    This argument has been specifically answered numerous times. Calvinists are followers of Christ, not of Calvin. To be a Calvinist is to hold a certain position on the doctrine of salvation. The same is true for arminians. They are not followers of Arminius. They hold a particular position on salvation.

    I have never done that.
     
  14. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't need to. But that name has been given historically to people who believe what I believe.

    That is not the idea. The "Doctrines of Grace" is a name that means something very specific. It doesn't mean that no one else teaches grace. You see, these names mean things historically.

    Actually, very few people quote Calvin today. There has been much work done on this topic. Furthermore, I don't know of anyone who dismisses him when he says that Christ died for the human race. Most calvinists believe that.

    No, it's not.

    I referred you to an article that shows Calvin probably did teach a particular atonement. Did you read it yet? Furthermore, it is irrelevant to see what Calvin taught. What is important is what the Bible teaches. We go by that.

    I haven't seen anyone attack you. I simply pointed out flaws in your method.

    We are ... Saved by grace just like the arminians who disagree with us.

    Ironic you should choose "T" :D ... But again, that is not what Paul was talking about.
     
  15. whatever

    whatever
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    2,088
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for the chuckle. I have never appealed to Calvin's teachings to support my belief in the Doctrines of Grace. Never. Most Calvinists don't. We didn't choose the name "Calvinism", and most of us would prefer a different name, but our opponents would twist and misrepresent whatever other name we came up with. That's OK, though - Jesus said it would be this way. But not forever.
     
  16. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ok - so that makes us Calvinist-Arminians??
     
  17. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    John Calvin on "whosoever" in John 3:16

    "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."

    It gets even more interesting to find that the so-called main proponent for "Calvinism", actually did not believe in Limited Atonement himself. Calvinsits today have now been found out by their misuse of JC's works over the years to support their nonsense, and not they say they do not actually follow his teachings. This is what I call double-standards, and very shameful for Christians to engage in such dishonest practice. Instead of admitting that they were wrong, they will continue to fight for something that clearly is an error. May God forgive their wilful blindness to the Truth.
     
  18. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    How many times will you repeat that nonsense Icthus? I have given you a resource to begin your study that there is evidence that Calvin did hold to a particular redemption. I have furthermore shown that it is irrelevant since Calvinism is not about following Calvin but rather a label for a position on what the Bible teaches about salvation.

    This is what makes conversation with you so difficult. You assert something; some one tells you and then demonstrates that you are misinformed, or incorrect; then you continue just like you were never told. That is not a good way to debate. Be always learning. When someone corrects an opinion you have, be quick to change it, or at least to admit there is another side.
     
  19. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    BTW, I notice you are not giving citations for these quotes of Calvin. Why not? You scared to have someone check them to see what they actually say? It is customary to provide a reference when you give a citation. Please do so.
     
  20. icthus

    icthus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Larry, I have got the info from Calvin's Commentaries found at the great Bible website, biblecentre.net feel free to check me out. I have simply copied and pasted the info.

    Have a good day (as you Yanks say)
    :D
     

Share This Page

Loading...