a comparison

No, not in the sense we would typically understand it. In the sense it is used there, the Aist holds that everyone has been or will be 'born again'. We would more typically understand it as the 'point of decision', or something like that. To the Arminian, being 'born again' does not lead necessarily to belief or salvation but merely makes it possible.

Instead Arminians posit what is called 'prevenient grace' (see Article IV). In classic Arminians (as opposed to semi-pelegianism that many 'arminians' today actually hold to), man is seen to have no ability in himself to accept the gospel. On this Arminians and Cists are fully agreed. The difference is that Arminians hold that God has given sufficient grace to have faith (prevenient grace) to everyone. Cists on the other hand, hold that saving grace is given only to the elect.

The difference between Arminians and Cists is NOT about free-will - both equally held that without the active help and grace of God NOONE could come to Him. The difference is in who receives that grace.

 

If the quote to which you refer begins:
"Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and in the goodness of God is offered unto all men without distinction,..."
be aware that it is a misquotation found in Augustus Strong's Systematic Theology, c. 1910.

 

Thanks for that piece of info. That point was not made on the listserver that I am aware of. But in truth they have posted quite a few 'general atonement' statements of Calvin's. At the risk of muddying the waters of this thread, which has taken a nice turn toward examining Arminianism, I might just post a request for quotes on that listserver and then start a new thread or post them here.

 

Okay, here's a few Calvin quotes:


"I approve of the ordinary reading, that he alone bore the punishment
of many, because on him was laid the guilt of the whole world. It is
evident from other passages, and especially from the fifth chapter
of the Epistle to the Romans, that 'many' sometimes denotes 'all.'"
Calvin from Isa 53:12.


"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."

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.
Calvin. Romans 5:18.


Thus all the more ought we groan, seeing that the world is too
perverse to return to God, but rather elects to oppose him. This
seeing how truly the Devil has blinded humankind, we are right to
feel dejected and sad. Why? Because to see souls created in the image
of God move toward their own damnation is hardly a light matter,
especially souls that were redeemed at such a cost by the blood of
God's Son. It ought to make us sad to see them perish so miserably.
Above all, we must keep in mind the purpose for which our Lord
ordained the preaching of the Gospel, that by faith, as Saint Paul
says, we might render to God the obedience and honor that God is due
[1 Timothy 1:17; 6;16], and that humankind might be saved, "for it is
the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes" [Romans
1:16]. Consequently, in view of the fact that human malice frustrates
God's intentions, we are justified in raising a lament similar to
Micah's. Calvin, Sermons on Micah, Sermon 25, 7:1-3, p., 371.


Wherefore, if God were to approach his people, whether Jew or Gentile, a
new covenant was needed: one which would be certain, sure, and
inviolable. And to establish and confirm it, it was necessary to have a
Mediator, who would intercede and come between the two parties, to make
concord between them; for without this, man would have had always to
live under the ire and indignation of God, and would have had no means
of relief from the curse, misery, and confusion into which he was snared
and had fallen. And it was our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the true
and only eternal Son of God, who had to be sent and given to mankind by
the Father, to restore a world otherwise wasted, destroyed, and desolate.

But when the fullness of time had come and the period foreordained by
God was ended, this great Messiah, so promised and so awaited, came; he
was perfect, and accomplished all that was necessary to redeem us and
save us. He was given not only to the Israelites, but to all men, of
every people and every land, to the end that by him human nature might
be reconciled to God. John Calvin, 'Preface to Olivetan's New
Testament," in _Calvin: Commentaries_, trans., and ed., by Joseph
Haroutian (Philadelphia" Westminster Press, 1958), pp., 61 and 63.


We now see why an oath is interposed, while he pronounces that he will
take care that the Jews should not ridicule any longer. Behold, says he,
all souls are mine; as the soul of the son so the soul of the father,
all souls are mine; the soul, therefore, which has sinned it shall die.
Some interpreters explain the beginning of the verse thus: that men
vainly and rashly complain when God seems to treat them too severely,
since the clay does not rise against the potter. Since God is the maker
of the whole world, we are his workmanship: what madness, then, to rise
up against him when he does not satisfy us: and we saw this simile used
by Jeremiah. (Jeremiah 18:6.) The sentiment, then, is true in itself,
that all souls are under God’s sovereignty by the right of creation, and
therefore he can arbitrarily determine for each whatever he wishes; and
all who clamor against him reap no profit: and this teaching it is
advantageous to notice. But this passage ought to be understood
otherwise; namely, that nothing is more unworthy than that God should be
accused of tyrannizing over men, when he rather defends them, as being
his own workmanship. When, therefore, God pronounces that all souls are
his own, he does not merely claim sovereignty and power, but he rather
shows that he is affected with fatherly love towards the whole human
race since he created and formed it; for, if a workman loves his work
because he recognizes in it the fruits of his industry, so, when God has
manifested his power and goodness in the formation of men, he must
certainly embrace them with affection. True, indeed, we are abominable
in God’s sight, through being corrupted by original sin, as it is
elsewhere said, (Psalm 14:1, 2) but inasmuch as we are men, we must be
dear to God, and our salvation must be precious in his sight. We now see
what kind of refutation this is: all souls are mine, says he: I have
formed all, and am the creator of all, and so I am affected with
fatherly love towards all, and they shall rather feel my clemency, from
the least to the greatest, than experience too much rigor and severity.
Calvin, Commentary, Ezekiel 18:1-4.

 

and ... I don't know what! What do you make of it?

I am not that familiar with Calvin's writings.

 

You are sure right about that, Donna.

Some of these quotes are long enough that they provide their own context, seemingly, though. There are quite a number of them, too, not just these few. If anyone has any of these sources, hopefully they will check them and let us know the context.

Having read quite a few of these, I have come to suspect they just represent a stage in Calvin's thought, but I don't really know that.

 

Hopefully just the dates on the works will provide a clue. Calvin's Commentaries are pretty well known.

 

I guess just the dates of those quotations. It would be helpful to know if it was early in his career, or later. Also, are they spread out over a 20-year time span, or just a short period of time?

I don't mean to make work for you, of course. But if you think it is as interesting and surprising as I do, then it would be good to know the whens and wherefors.

BTW, I posted a question on that listserver asking for someone to summarize the development of Calvin's thought on general versus particular atonement. Although they were very nice and forthcoming about the quotes, no one has even hazarded a guess on the other. Even though they are a truly beleaguered minority among theologians, they don't seem defensive about this. They are just very certain that Calvin believed in general atonement! I just say yeah, but when and for how long? Plus of course these quotes could be taken entirely out of context, so that wants checking, too. But they seem honest and well motivated, professional theologians I think, so I do grant them credibility.

Too bad to have to exegete Calvin, isn't it?

 

It was in Calvins 'Institutes' that Limited Atonement is spoken to and that was in the early part of Calvins life.

Later in his life after much reflection and study is when he wrote his 'Commentaries', and it is there we see his view changed toward an Unlimited viewpoint.

He started with 'Limited' and ended (so to speak) with a view the view known as Unlimited Atonement.

This was a view that was consistant with early church fathers (even up to and through Calvin), and is something Rippon started a thread on called "Early Church Dads and Reformers" (it is on page 2 of the theology debate section). It was done in contention to a posting I gave stating this was a commonly held view but he contended that Gill disagreed with me. It is an interesting piece but it only deals with one aspect of what is being discussed here.

The only reason I bring it up is that Amity asked to know when Calvin wrote those and when his view changed.

In posting on Rippons thread - I deal a little with Calvin and his change of heart regarding (to my knowledge) only the atonement aspect of his view point and cite him as well. but not alot because Calvin speaks for himself.

 

Wow!

Chicken Little, Chicken Little! The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Okay, that settles that in my mind at least.

 

Allan , I have pointed this out to you time and time again . Calvin updated his Institutes throughout his life . His last edition was several times the size of the first and published in 1559 , five years before his death . He wrote the bulk of his commentaries brfore 1559 .

 

Let me say this in being fair to Calvin though. He never to MY knowledge stated that he held universal atonement as his stance. His commentaries show that his veiw changed somewhat.

In all seriousness, it would be kinda hard for the guy who came up with the system he was enforcing to turn around and say, oops.

 

And just for fun Rippon, will you tell us when he finished and published his final verson on his commentaries.

And he updated them as well. You always seem to forget that. You would figure if he updated one that he would update the other which was in contention with his most current view.

 

He did not update his sermons . I believe he also did not update his commentaries . That is unless you are mistakenly referring to revisions made after his death .

 

No, not the revisions. Those was about as bad as the 'revisions' the followers of Arminius did. *shudder*.

No one will let the men speak for themselves. Everyone must INTERPRET what they meant.

Anyway, the Institutes were written early on (and revised throughout his life) and his commentaries were written toward the latter of his life. These are things we KNOW.

Give me a bit and I will get the dates.


Eidtted in<<<.....
Rippon, you touched on something in a new thread that has always bothered me a little theologically. I will be watching it see how it fares cause I'm curious.

 

I am ignorant on this. What is the difference between general atonement, unlimited atonement, and universal atonement? Thanks for your help.