That God was directly electing both saved/unsaved, and that jesus died Just for sake of elect?
Did he write those, teach those, or were they later additions to Calvinism after he wrote the Institutes, and after he passed away?
did John Calvin Actually believe In Double presentination/Limited Atonment?
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by JesusFan, Jun 1, 2011.
-
Calvin's reprobation is another matter. He did write quite a bit about that.
See Institutes III, xxiii, 7, et. al. -
preachinjesus Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Absolutely he did. Just read The Institutes.
-
-
And That IF he taught the lost were "predestined" to that state by a decree from God, that he still saw it as the result of the sinner refusing to heed obey God, not because God "forced them" to go to Hell? That he place the responsibility back on the unsaved still? -
-
My post was in response to that. :thumbs: -
Having read Calvin's Institutes and working my way through it again, I believe he would hold to "L". Saying, by the way, Jesus died for all as he does in his commentaries does not disqualify the "L", other Calvinists would agree.
On the other hand, there is a well known dissertation where it is asserted that Calvin did not believe in "L". I have never read this dissertation and I know and respect some scholars who give this work academic respect (both who agree and disagree with this work). Until I can read the dissertation, I have to rely upon my current view that it appears Calvin held to the "L".
has anyone read this dissertation (can't remember who wrote it, but I have read what others wrote about it)? -
However, I have argued that back in his day they did not necessarily divide up the 'atonement' and it's reception as many do today, but was more specifically identified as being those who received the atonement that was made.
IOW - that Atonement itself is general or 'to all' but it's application or effect is only upon those of faith.
If this is the case, I and most non-cals would hold to "L" as we agree, that only the elect will receive the propitiation by faith (as Romans 3:25 states), even though the atonement (as was set forth in the LAW of the OT) was made on behalf of all but only those of faith were saved. -
I am a Calvinist. There is a difference between effectual atonement, and saying Christ died for the whole world. The effectual aspect is not a debate in Calvinistic circles, the latter is often debated. I think Beeke's book on Calvinism in celebration of Calvin's 400 years has a discussion on this, but I am not sure. -
If one like me says that jesus died for sins of all people, but oNLY those he has decided to elct to etrenal Life receive benefits from that act...
Is that limited or unlimited?
He died for all, but not all even possible to be saved -
Ruiz said: ↑On the other hand, there is a well known dissertation where it is asserted that Calvin did not believe in "L". I have never read this dissertation and I know and respect some scholars who give this work academic respect (both who agree and disagree with this work). Until I can read the dissertation, I have to rely upon my current view that it appears Calvin held to the "L".
has anyone read this dissertation (can't remember who wrote it, but I have read what others wrote about it)?Click to expand...
If you are not interested in going to the very accessible primary sources (the Institutes and Calvin's commentary on John 3.16, 1 John 2, etc.) the next best bet is to read Nicole's article on the subject.
Update: I googled and found the article online: http://www.apuritansmind.com/Arminianism/NicoleRogerCalvinsLimitedAtonement.htm -
Winman said: ↑JesusFan said: ↑If you read the Institutes before, then why didn't you know his views?Click to expand...
Why would I keep rereading it, wouldn't once be enough to grasp all that Paul was stating?Click to expand...