Jesus atoned for the sins of the whole world

T

TomFL

Guest
He’s put himself in a box that he won’t even peek from.
More Calvin for you

Yet 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's Commentaries.
 
T

TomFL

Guest
No, if he knew Calvinism like he thinks he does, he would know better.
Still More Calvin for you

Mark 14:24

Which is shed for many. By the word many he means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race;
Calvin's Commentaries.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
So you as a Calvinist disagree with Calvin and Barnes.

Why should I believer you over these 2 great men of God who knew the original greek language and are respected theologians who were peer reviewed ?

First of all, I think you should show this post to Seth (after he comes back from "vacation") to show you're not a Calvinist, as he falsely claimed.

Of the five points, Limited Atonement (or particular redemption) seems to be the most difficult to accept, but both sides seem to agree that the 5 points either stand together, or fall together.

Also I see a circular argument or reasoning in your response to both Calvin and Barnes commentary on these passages. I do not think your reply is persuasive enough for me to disagree with them

I refer you back to my post about "all men" and "world", and the fact that the ancients didn't so much think in terms of "individuals", but in people "groups" (eg. JEWS, and GENTILES).

Refer back to Rev. 5:9, and ask yourself whether the "every" (a form of "all") refers to the individuals, or to the people GROUPS:

Rev. 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll
and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed
people for God from
every tribe and language and people and nation,

"ransomed people FROM each of these groups...

So you as a Calvinist disagree with Calvin and Barnes.

Why should I believer you over these 2 great men of God who knew the original greek language and are respected theologians who were peer reviewed ?

While we should recognize the wisdom of Godly men before us, we can't be afraid to disagree with them when we think they're wrong. I'm sure we could find other scholars who studied the Greek directly, who you disagree with. So with scholars on both sides, what do we do? We have to disagree with SOMEONE, no matter what.

Let me ask you.... What is your position on water baptism?:

a) paedo-baptism (infant baptism);
b) credo-baptism (believer's baptism)?

I am thoroughly convinced from Scripture that credo-baptism is the Biblical way. They have to believe in Christ before they can confess Him as their Saviour. Yet Calvin was a believer in paedo-baptism, and Barnes, a Presbyterian, presumably also believed in paedo-baptism.

Do you agree with them on this point as well, or do you disagree?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
I was talking about 1 John 2:2 and John 1:29. Thank you

One the points I was trying to make was that there are reasonable interpretations to these passages by Calvinists as well.

Again, "world" in some instances simply means, "not just Jews (as a group), but Gentiles (as a group) as well. Not that everyone in each group was atoned for, but there are those in all groups (Rev. 5:9) who will be ransomed.
 
T

TomFL

Guest
He’s put himself in a box that he won’t even peek from.
I believe (?) you saw this already

On 1 John 2:2, Calvin declared, ‘Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and in the goodness of God is offered unto all men without distinction, his blood being shed … for the whole human race.’
 
T

TomFL

Guest
He’s put himself in a box that he won’t even peek from.
Yet another

John Calvin likewise held to a form of universal atonement. Consider the following:

To bear the sins means to free those who have sinned from their guilt by his satisfaction. He says many meaning all, as in Rom. 5:15. It is of course certain that not all enjoy the fruits of Christ’s death, but this happens because their unbelief hinders them. That question is not dealt with here because the apostle is not discussing how few or how many benefit from the death of Christ, but means simply that He died for others, not for Himself. He therefore contrasts the many to the one.25

Paul makes grace common to all men, not because it in fact extends to all, but because it is offered to all. Although Christ suffered for the sins of the world, and is offered by the goodness of God without distinction to all men, yet not all receive Him.26

Whosoever Will (p. 70). B&H Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

25 J. Calvin, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews and the First and Second Epistles of St. Peter (ed. D. W. Torrance and T. F. Torrance; trans. W. B. Johnston; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), 131.

26 J. Calvin, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians (ed. D. W. Torrance and T. F. Torrance; trans. R. Mackenzie; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), 117–18.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
I believe (?) you saw this already

On 1 John 2:2, Calvin declared, ‘Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and in the goodness of God is offered unto all men without distinction, his blood being shed … for the whole human race.’

It's interesting that you quote some (unknown) secondary source, rather than quoting Calvin directly. I can't say that I'm impressed with your citation skills.

Here is what Calvin wrote DIRECTLY:

"And not for ours only. He added this for the sake of amplifying, in order that the faithful might be assured that the expiation made by Christ, extends to all who by faith embrace the gospel.(1)
Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated?
I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretense extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself.(2) Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation. They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world. For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only true salvation of the world."
-- John Calvin, Commentary on 1 John 2:2

(1) i.e. it does not extend to anyone who do not have faith and embrace the gospel. It extends only to believers (the elect).
(2) Calvin denies, as a "pretense", the interpretation that Christ died for the reprobate.
 
T

TomFL

Guest
One the points I was trying to make was that there are reasonable interpretations to these passages by Calvinists as well.

Again, "world" in some instances simply means, "not just Jews (as a group), but Gentiles (as a group) as well. Not that everyone in each group was atoned for, but there are those in all groups (Rev. 5:9) who will be ransomed.
And it other instances it includes far more that your theology will allow


John 12:47 (KJV)
47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

John defines world for us

showing it includes any unbeliever

compare

John 3:17 (KJV)
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

context

John 3:16-17 (KJV)
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Here also

1 John 5:19 (KJV)
19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

all that are in opposition to God

1 John 2:2 (KJV)
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
 

Chalcedon

Well-known member
First of all, I think you should show this post to Seth (after he comes back from "vacation") to show you're not a Calvinist, as he falsely claimed.

Of the five points, Limited Atonement (or particular redemption) seems to be the most difficult to accept, but both sides seem to agree that the 5 points either stand together, or fall together.



I refer you back to my post about "all men" and "world", and the fact that the ancients didn't so much think in terms of "individuals", but in people "groups" (eg. JEWS, and GENTILES).

Refer back to Rev. 5:9, and ask yourself whether the "every" (a form of "all") refers to the individuals, or to the people GROUPS:

Rev. 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll
and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed
people for God from
every tribe and language and people and nation,

"ransomed people FROM each of these groups...



While we should recognize the wisdom of Godly men before us, we can't be afraid to disagree with them when we think they're wrong. I'm sure we could find other scholars who studied the Greek directly, who you disagree with. So with scholars on both sides, what do we do? We have to disagree with SOMEONE, no matter what.

Let me ask you.... What is your position on water baptism?:

a) paedo-baptism (infant baptism);
b) credo-baptism (believer's baptism)?

I am thoroughly convinced from Scripture that credo-baptism is the Biblical way. They have to believe in Christ before they can confess Him as their Saviour. Yet Calvin was a believer in paedo-baptism, and Barnes, a Presbyterian, presumably also believed in paedo-baptism.

Do you agree with them on this point as well, or do you disagree?
Amen regarding @Sethproton false accusations against him.
 

Chalcedon

Well-known member
And it other instances it includes far more that your theology will allow


John 12:47 (KJV)
47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

John defines world for us

showing it includes any unbeliever

compare

John 3:17 (KJV)
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

context

John 3:16-17 (KJV)
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Here also

1 John 5:19 (KJV)
19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

all that are in opposition to God

1 John 2:2 (KJV)
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
Actually your whole world works from 1 John but not the gospel since he only used that phrase in his epistle . Just posting to be fair here and being objective as possible :)
 

Carbon

Well-known member
I believe (?) you saw this already

On 1 John 2:2, Calvin declared, ‘Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and in the goodness of God is offered unto all men without distinction, his blood being shed … for the whole human race.’
Reread what you just posted Tom. Let me help. Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, not just the Jews. To all without distinction, not just the Jews. For the whole human race, not just the Jews. Etc...
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
There is very little doubt that you can't translate Latin nor French.

I literally spent years in high school translating from French.
But there you go again, "not responding" to me.... ;)

You're relying upon others who have. It's funny how you post their translations as primary sources.

A translation of a primary source is far more reliable than a (biased) secondary source.
 
T

TomFL

Guest
It's interesting that you quote some (unknown) secondary source, rather than quoting Calvin directly. I can't say that I'm impressed with your citation skills.

Here is what Calvin wrote DIRECTLY:

"And not for ours only. He added this for the sake of amplifying, in order that the faithful might be assured that the expiation made by Christ, extends to all who by faith embrace the gospel.(1)
Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated?
I pass by the dotages of the fanatics, who under this pretense extend salvation to all the reprobate, and therefore to Satan himself.(2) Such a monstrous thing deserves no refutation. They who seek to avoid this absurdity, have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world. For then is really made evident, as it is meet, the grace of Christ, when it is declared to be the only true salvation of the world."
-- John Calvin, Commentary on 1 John 2:2

(1) i.e. it does not extend to anyone who do not have faith and embrace the gospel. It extends only to believers (the elect).
(2) Calvin denies, as a "pretense", the interpretation that Christ died for the reprobate.

I was under the impression that one was seen already

Technical difficulties make getting around difficult

There are however a number of other quotes

Care to deal with them ?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
No. I am saying that what Theo is references as a primary source is really a secondary source... just like he's complaining about someone posting their "secondary source"...

Well, CARM rules state that this is an English-speaking forum. The vast majority of posters don't read French or Latin, so appealing to that would be a waste of time.

Further, if a translation is a "secondary source", then Tom's quote of "Whosoever Will" is by definition a TERTIARY source, which is worse.

You're not gaining ground here.

But there you go, continuing to "not respond to me" ... ;)
 
T

TomFL

Guest
Reread what you just posted Tom. Let me help. Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, not just the Jews. To all without distinction, not just the Jews. For the whole human race, not just the Jews. Etc...
All men without distinction is semantically all men

elect - non elect are distinctions

BTW you added to the text

On 1 John 2:2, Calvin declared, ‘Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and in the goodness of God is offered unto all men without distinction, his blood being shed … for the whole human race.’

the whole human race

is not followed by just the jews

The text however is a composite by AH Strong from what I have just learned and was picked up by Dave Hunt
 
Top