John Calvin on The Extent of Jesus' Death

Calvinists post endless falsehoods to support their false doctrines.

 

When a Calvinist uses their special word "atonement" they do not define it. Smoke and mirrors folks, smoke and mirrors.

I use terms like "Christ died for all humanity." Very clear. Does it say Christ redeemed all humanity? Nope
I say a lost individual is "redeemed, saved, reconciled" when God places them into Christ. Very clear.

 

Non-Calvinists post endless falsehoods to support their false doctrines.

 

"Jesus died a violent, substitutionary death to be a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of Jews and Gentiles. By this death, Jesus took upon himself God’s righteous judgment and wrath against the sins of those for whom he died. By dying as their penal substitute, Jesus paid the penalty for their sins, and he therefore both propitiated God’s wrath against their sins and expiated their sins so that the sins of Jews and Gentiles would be forgiven and so that they would be justified by faith, forgiven of their sins, reconciled to God, reconciled to each other, participate in the future resurrection, and saved from God’s wrath."
What Is Penal Substitution?

 

Yet another off topic disparagement reflecting avoidance of the fact John Calvin's view was that Christ died for all humanity.

 

Does the above address Christ laid down His life as a Ransom for all? Nope
Does the above any verse or passage reference? Nope
Is the fact Jesus became the propitiation or means of salvation rewritten to say Jesus propitiated sins when He died? You bet.

Limited atonement, Christ died only for the specific sins of the foreseen individuals supposedly chosen before they were even created, is obviously false and unbiblical doctrine. 1 Peter 2:9-10 precludes being chosen individually before existing as "not a people." 1 John 2:2

 

Yet another off topic disparagement reflecting avoidance of the fact that Jesus view was that he died for all whom the Father had given him.

 

Notice how Van looks for loopholes. I answered his question to define atonement and then he claims I didn't do this, that and the other thing. Such is the habit of a person who will not accept truth, but must prop up his own philosophy.

 

No verse says Christ died for "all" the Father had given Him." Once again and for the umpteenth time, Jesus is the means of salvation for the whole of humanity, 1 John 2:2.

John 17:20 I do not ask on behalf of these alone [those who had been given], but for those also who believe in Me through their word; [those to be given in the future]

 

Your post did not define "Calvinism's definition of atonement."

Does atonement mean Christ paid the ransom for all humanity?

 

The English word "atonement" appears in the KJV but the same Greek word is translated as reconciliation. Since God is "reconciling" (present tense) the world (humanity) to Himself, that means Christ did not "reconcile" everyone to be saved when He died on the cross. He provided the means of salvation, redemption, reconciliation. That is why we, as ambassadors of Christ beg the lost to be reconciled to God. 2 Corinthians 5:19-21

 

Matthew 26:27-28
And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Notice how Matthew is not a universalist.
While we finite humans do not have a list or a preview into the Lambs book of life, we are clearly told that not all will believe. We are told that God chooses, elects and predestined the many for whom Jesus blood is poured out.

Van continues to look at salvation from a finite human perspective rather than look at salvation from God's revealed perspective. Thus, Van struggles to grasp and accept what God chooses to do with sinful man.

 

You can always count of a Calvinist to claim his or her view reflects God's view and their opponents view reflects the human view.
Next we get the old Calvinist chestnut that "many" in Matthew 26:28 refers to the "few" of Matthew 22:14. Twaddle
And next we get a repeat of the material false statement that Christ dying for all means all are redeemed. Twaddle squared.

 

Your post is worthless. It is filled with the hatred of anyone who does not hold to Calvinism.. As far as struggle you have none because you wallow in the false doctrine of Calvinism and refuse to consider the truth of scripture. I pity you for your lack of love for your neighbors
MB

 

was God not loving when he destroyed all but Noah and His family in the Flood?

 

Are you claiming Austin is God?
MB

 

Van's educated response is..."twaddle." Let the reader decide how effective that response is in Van's defense of universal atonement.

 

Hmm...
Your second sentence is an outright lie, but certainly you "feel" that way.

I accept what the Bible teaches, if that is what you mean by "wallow." I fully embrace the truth of scripture.

You know nothing of my love for neighbors. I know a majority of the people on my block and regularly talk with them. I have a backyard "walk-in" theater where after dark movies are shown and both unchurched and churched are welcome to gather and build community. In this case, you are blinded by your hatred of Reformed theology, which is grace oriented rather than your preferred law oriented theology.

 

Once again, Calvinism's defense is based on attacking the poster and not the premise.

Next we get the old Calvinist chestnut that "many" in Matthew 26:28 refers to the "few" of Matthew 22:14. Twaddle
And next we get a repeat of the material false statement that Christ dying for all means all are redeemed. Twaddle squared.

 

Your premise has already been debunked many comments before this point.
Since you refused to address the fine points and merely addressed a phantom Calvin, it is necessary to point out you as the flawed thinker.
Do you have a new premise that hasn't already been destroyed by scripture?