John Calvin on The Extent of Jesus' Death

Sheer absurdity once again. The gift of the means of salvation also abounds to all humanity as a consequence of Christ's sacrifice. 1 John 2:2

And we can add:

2Peter 2:1 "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves." Thus non-believers were bought by Jesus. And being bought does not result by itself in salvation as some are still headed for swift destruction. Christ's death purchased the means of salvation for humanity, but only those God places into Christ are saved.

 

Yet, you don't quote Calvin and moreso, you don't quote the Bible. Instead you make a biblically no defensible claim that Jesus atonement is only a means to salvation.

 

1 John 2:2 does not support your claim that Jesus atoning sacrifice is a "gift of the means of salvation to all humanity." Moreso, you make salvation a work of man and God a passive observer who merely has opened a door to walk through. Anyone with a discerning spirit can see that you have couched the law into salvation and thus removed grace. People can read what you write, Van. They can see you are in error. Your avoidance of your own error is spectacular as you deflect, deflect, deflect.

 

Yet another material false statement, Christ sacrifice is both the means of salvation and for those God puts into Christ, the salvation.

 

On and on, taint so after taint so.
The falsehoods (1) Faith is not works, (2) Salvation is the gift of God not based on the individual, (3) God puts individuals into Christ, we do not propel ourselves, (4) no flesh is justified by the law, (5) we are saved by grace and not by works.

Propitiation = Means of Salvation = Christ 1 John 2:2

 

@Van Let it go brother. Some of the brethren here can be engaged despite differences, others not.

 

On and on it goes with the taint so from Van.
Falsehood, Jesus atonement was only means to salvation.
Van teaches particular redemption while denying it at the same. Note the confusion in his posts.

 

Turretin; The extent of the atonement
When it is said that "Christ is a propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world," 1Joh 2.2 it is not meant to extend the propitiation to all collectively and severally, but to those only who can comfort themselves by the intercession of Christ, and the pardon which they have obtained through him. They are the elect only. Christ is a propitiation for those alone, whose cause he pleads as intercessor with the Father; for these are joined together by the apostle as equal and inseparable. Our learned opponents confess, in their explanation of John 17:9, that Christ is not an advocate for all. Besides, the Father must be actually propitiated and reconciled to all those for whom Christ made propitiation, unless we maintain that Christ missed his aim and shed his blood in vain, contrary to the apostle's assertion that no one for whom Christ died can be condemned, Rom 8:34. This plainly cannot be said of those who are shut out from the covenant and have the wrath of God abiding upon them.Joh 3.36 Finally, the scope of the apostle, which is to comfort believers against the remains of sin, proves that he does not intend every one of the posterity of Adam. For what comfort can a believer take from that grace which is common to the elect and the reprobate? What comfort if he knows that Christ in his death has done nothing more for him than for unbelievers? Therefore, John's phrase does not respect all men of all nations, but to the believing inhabitants of the whole world — or as Calvin says, "the sons of God dispersed through the whole world." Joh 11.52 Lest anyone think that the blessing of Christ's atonement was confined to the apostles alone, or to those believers to whom this Epistle was directed, John says it was much more extensive, embracing men of all nations, and belonging to believers redeemed out of every tribe, tongue, kindred, and people of the whole world.Rev 5.9 It is of little moment whether the phrase "our sins" is understood as those of the apostles, or those of believing Jews of the dispersion then living (to whom, without doubt, this Epistle was directed, as well as the Epistles of Peter and James, all of which are called catholic, because they are not inscribed to any particular city or person), as distinguished from those who either had believed before Christ appeared in the flesh, or who would afterwards believe to the end of the world. The question still comes to the same point. It is sufficient that the world here mentioned cannot embrace all men universally, because John and those to whom he writes were distinguished from it; yet they are included in that universality which embraces the whole of the human race.

 

Turretin;
This is confirmed from the manner in which Christ procured salvation; for if the procuring extended to all, then it must be either absolute or conditional. The former will not be asserted, for then all men, universally, would be saved. The latter is equally inadmissible for,

1st: What is procured conditionally, is not, properly speaking, procured at all, but only a mere possibility of its being procured, provided the condition is complied with.

2nd: Christ has procured the condition itself either for all, or for some only. If he has acquired the condition for all, then all will assuredly be saved, for this condition could be obtained for them in no other way than absolutely — unless, indeed, they are saying there is a condition to a condition, which is absurd; that would tend to stretch out into an endless chain of conditions. Yet even then, all these conditional conditions would, on the present supposition, be purchased by Christ. If the condition by which salvation is to be obtained, has been procured only for some, then the salvation has not been fully procured for all. The procuring has been partial and defective in the most essential point. In this view, the act by which salvation is said to have been provided, has been vain and delusive: for the condition annexed to it is one which the sinner is utterly unable to comply with, which will never be performed, and which God not only foresaw would never be complied with, but also decreed not to give the power to fulfil it, while he alone is able to give it.

Finally, this subterfuge represents Christ as having had a double intention in his atonement: one conditional, in favour of all: the other absolute, in favour of the elect. This is a representation unsupported by revelation, and irreconcilable with the unity and simplicity of the decree which appointed the death of Christ. VIII

 

Not really.
Turretin on the extent of the atonement;
X. The last argument on this subject is the absurdities that flow from the doctrine of universal atonement. If Christ died for all men universally, it will follow: —

1. That he died on condition they would believe, for innumerable multitudes to whom his death has never been made known; and hence it was impossible that they could believe.

2. That he died for those whom he knew to be children of perdition, whom God had passed by, and who would never, to all eternity, enjoy any of the fruits of his death; and so he exercised ineffable love towards those whom both he and the Father will cause to suffer eternally under the effects of their wrath.

3. That he died for those who, prior to his death, were actually condemned without all hope of reprieve, and were in hell suffering his avenging wrath; and as their surety he suffered punishment in the place of those who were suffering punishment for themselves, and must do so without end

4. That Christ is the Saviour and Redeemer of those who not only never will be, but never can be saved or redeemed. Otherwise he must be an imperfect Saviour, having obtained a salvation which he never applies: for indeed he cannot properly be called a Saviour of any but those whom he makes to be partakers of salvation, and who are actually saved

 

When it is said that "Christ is a propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world," 1Joh 2.2 it is not meant to extend the propitiation to all collectively and severally, but to those only who can comfort themselves by the intercession of Christ, and the pardon which they have obtained through him. They are the elect only. Christ is a propitiation for those alone, whose cause he pleads as intercessor with the Father; for these are joined together by the apostle as equal and inseparable. Our learned opponents confess, in their explanation of John 17:9, that Christ is not an advocate for all. Besides, the Father must be actually propitiated and reconciled to all those for whom Christ made propitiation, unless we maintain that Christ missed his aim and shed his blood in vain, contrary to the apostle's assertion that no one for whom Christ died can be condemned, Rom 8:34. This plainly cannot be said of those who are shut out from the covenant and have the wrath of God abiding upon them.Joh 3.36

Turretin;extent of the atonement

 

more Turretin;
When heretical, apostate teachers are said "to deny the Lord that bought them," 2Pet 2:1, we are not to understand the "buying" to mean a literal atonement redeeming the sinner from the wrath and curse of God, and from eternal death. No one is so redeemed, but those who were given by the Father to Christ to be redeemed, and who consequently will be kept by Christ and saved with an everlasting salvation, as the members of his body and his special treasure. It is deliverance from error and idolatry which Peter speaks of here: a deliverance effected by an outward exhibition of the Gospel, and setting apart to the ministry, for which these false teachers were in a certain respect bought by Christ as Lord of the Church. Christ had acquired a particular title to them as his own by calling them into his Church, the house which he owns, as masters formerly bought servants for the discharge of domestic duties. That this is the intention of Peter, is gathered from the following considerations: — 1. He uses the word despoten (G1203 Lord), which signifies a master or an owner rather than a Saviour, to whom redemption properly so called belongs. 2. The word agorasanta (G59 buy) which the apostle employs here, is generally used to express that kind of buying which is practised in markets, and often denotes simple deliverance. 3. The kind of buying contemplated here, is that through which those bought are said "to have escaped the corruptions that are in the world, through the knowledge of God our Saviour," by which "they have known the way of righteousness," 2Pet 2:20-21. All these belong to deliverance from pagan errors and idolatries, and a calling to the knowledge of the truth from which, through apostasy and the introduction of most pernicious heresies, they make defection. Hence they are said to deny their Master who bought them and called them to the work of the ministry. [4. The denying of the Lord mentioned here, is a sin which is spoken of as particularly aggravated: and what constitutes the particular aggravation is that they deny their Master who bought them. But if Peter intends by the purchase mentioned here, that atonement which Christ in his death made for sin, then there was nothing in the conduct of these teachers that was particularly wicked. For the same thing might be affirmed of every man on the hypothesis of our opponents — for they maintain that he bought every man. On the supposition, however, that the buying intended here is the calling of these false teachers out of the darkness of heathen superstitions, to a knowledge of the glorious Gospel of God, and making them teachers of that Gospel — then their denial of a Master who had done such great things for them, was a crime aggravated by the foulest ingratitude. — Translator]

 

I see yet another Calvinist tag-team is copy and pasting smokesceed non-stop. Pay no attention to Calvinists who should know limited atonement as defined by Calvinism is as bogus as a three dollar bill.

 

well, I think the likes of Calvin and Turretin and Berkhof and Spurgeon and their like know better then you!

 

Sadly, you see nothing.

 

Think what you will, but not a single Calvinist has even addressed the issues presented in this thread. Did anyone advocate "universal atonement" as defined by Turretin? Nope so obfuscation on display. Did anyone say Christ died on condition individuals of humanity would believe? Nope More obfuscation. Did anyone say Jesus death "redeemed everyone?" Nope, more obfuscation.

It is clear Calvinism is a bogus as a 3 dollar bill...

 

Why not address the topic?

Calvinism's Limited Atonement is a denial that God loves humanity, and that Christ died as a ransom for all.

 

Why not address the topic?

Unlimited atonement says that Jesus paid for all human sin, past, present and future. Yet it limits the effectiveness of the atonement to only those who, by their intellect, choose to believe the atonement.
Unless you are a universalist, then the atonement is effective for all humanity and then all will enter heaven.
So, even an unlimited atonement person sets a limit to the effectiveness of the atonement...unless they are universalists.

Reformed theology recognizes that a loving God is a just God. Justice requires that the penalty for sin be paid. The question then is whether the penalty for sin is fully paid for all humanity by Jesus or whether the penalty for sin is fully paid for all whom the Father has given to Jesus. In John 6, John 10 and John 17 Jesus makes it crystal clear that his payment is fully paid only for those whom the Father has given him and not for all humanity.

The second question is whether God is still a loving God if he chooses to elect some to give to Jesus, but not all. Is God evil for not choosing all? Van says God is evil and unloving. I say that God is loving if He justly condemns us to hell and does not redeem us. God shows grace and love if he chooses just one to redeem. God shows abounding grace and love in choosing many to redeem. God is not evil when He, by His authority chooses whom He wills to give to Jesus so that Jesus atoning sacrifice pays the debt of their sin.

The readers must decide if God is evil or not. I say God is loving. Van says God is evil.

 

1) Did anyone advocate "unlimited atonement?" Nope Strike One
2) Did Christ's sacrifice purchase more than those who chose to believe? Yes Strike Two
3) Did anyone say "all" would enter heaven? Nope Strike Three
4) Does Reformed Theology recognize God loved the world (humanity)? Nope
5) Did anyone say Christ's death paid the penalty for the specific sins of every individual who ever lived? Nope
6) Being sufficient for all, Christ's sacrifice removes the sin burden of every individual placed in Christ, but the sins of those never placed in Christ remain, and is reflected by their stored up wrath.
7) Does John 6, 10, and 17 say Christ paid for the specific sins of people not yet given to Him? Nope
8) Was the question, is God a loving God? Nope It was "does God love humanity?"
9) Did anyone say God is evil? Yes Austin C made those words up. Go figure

 

You did.

No, Jesus atoning sacrifice is limited to only those who believe. (Note: by you saying yes here, you advocate unlimited atonement (universal atonement).

Indeed, you make your universal atonement limited, thus you contradict yourself.

Yes, Reformed recognize that God redeems from all nations, tribes and tongues. Thus God loves the world. Even if God redeemed only one, he would have loved the world. His justice is an act of love.

Thus you present limited atonement. (Yet, you hate limited atonement. See how contradictory you are.)

See the contradiction:
You say "effective for all", universal atonement. Then you say only for those in Christ, limited atonement.
Van, you are contradicting yourself.

Yes, John 17 says exactly that.
“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world.
~ John 17:20-24

What is the answer.
I say: God loves Jesus. God loves all for whom Jesus has atoned their sins. That atonement is limited to those whom the Father has given to Jesus.

There is your lie. Nowhere do I say God is evil. Your dishonesty is obvious to the reader.