CALVIN THE SOULWINNER - What He Said

[frumanchu]

" John Calvin…is looked upon now, of course, a theologian only, but he was really one of the greatest of gospel preachers. When Calvin opened the Book and took a text, you might be sure that he was about to preach "Through grace are ye saved, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God." CH SPURGEON (14:216)​

Like his dear Lord Jesus, John Calvin has often been wounded in the house of his friends. Some Christians - who should rejoice in his ministry - practically hate him as much as Rome ever did. All manner of things have been spoken and written against him. Often these are without any foundation at all. One such falsehood - and no lie is of the truth (1 John 2:21) - is that Calvin had no burden for souls. He is portrayed as a dry theologian, sitting content in his Ivory Tower in Geneva, indifferent to the souls going to hell round about him.

Below are a few bits and pieces, drawn from his own words, which will let the man speak for himself. There appear to be two John Calvin's on the go. The myth invented by those who reject his theology and feel they must denigrate his person and ministry and the real Calvin of history of whom Spurgeon cried: "​

That glorious man, Calvin!"​

THE SALVATION OF SOULS…MORE PRECIOUS THAN THE WORLD: ​

"Yet, whatever result may at length follow our efforts, there never will be reason to regret that we showed both pious and grateful obedience to God, and, what we will be able to relieve our sorrow even in the greatest catastrophes, that we faithfully served both the glory of Christ, which is preferable to all the kingdoms of the world, and the salvation of souls, which is more precious than the whole world." (Concerning Scandals. St Andrew Press p.115)​

​

​

CALVIN BELIEVED WE OUGHT TO BE MOVED WITH COMPASSION IF WE SEE A POOR SOUL GOING TO PERDITION AND DESIRE GOD TO APPLY THE REMEDY:​

​

"However St. Paul speaks here expressly of the saints or faithful, but this does not imply that we should not pray generally for all men. For the wretched unbelievers and the ignorant have great need to be pleaded for with God; behold them on the way to perdition. If we saw a beast at the point of perishing, we would have pity on it. And what shall we do when we see souls in peril, which are so precious before God, as he has shown in that he has ransomed them with the blood of his own Son? If we see then a poor soul going thus to perdition, ought we not to be moved with compassion and kindness, and should we not desire God to apply the remedy? So then, St. Paul's meaning in this passage is not that we should let the wretched sinners alone without having any care for them. We should pray generally for all men, but he shows at the same time that we ought to have a special care for those whom God has joined to us by a tighter bond." (Calvin's sermon on Ephesians 6:18-19 BOT p684-685)​

​

CALVIN BELIEVED THAT THE GOSPEL WAS TO BE PROCLAIMED TO EVERY MAN - ELECT OR NOT:​

​

*​

Click here for many quotes which prove this point​

​

CALVIN BELIEVED IT TO BE HIS DUTY TO PRAY THAT EVERY MAN WOULD BE SAVED:​

​

"It is our duty to pray for all who trouble us; to desire the salvation of all men." (Comments on Psalms)​

​

"We ought to pray that this and that and every man may be saved and so embrace the whole human race, because we cannot yet distinguish the elect from the reprobate...we pray for the salvation of all whom we know to have been created in God's image and who have the same nature as ourselves; and we leave to God's judgement those whom He knows to be reprobate." (Comments on John 17:9)

​

CALVIN CARRIED OUT THIS DUTY TO PRAY FOR THE UNSAVED, OFFERING PETITIONS LIKE THIS AFTER HE PREACHED THE GOSPEL:​

​

​

"That it may please him to grant this grace not only to us but also to all people and Nations of the earth, bringing back all poor ignorant souls from the miserable bondage of errors and darkness, to the right way of salvation, for the doing whereof it may please him to raise up true and faithful ministers of his word that seek not their own profit and vainglory, but only to the advancement of his holy name, etc." (Prayer after his sermon on Galatians 4:8-11)​

​

​

​

​

CALVIN RECOGNISED THAT WE MUST LABOUR AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO BRING THE LOST TO SALVATION:​

​

​

​

"Thus we may see what St. Paul’s meaning is when he saith, God will have His grace made known to all the world, and His gospel preached to all creatures. Therefore, we must endeavour, as much as possible, to persuade those who are strangers to the faith, and seem to be utterly deprived of the goodness of God, to accept of salvation. Jesus Christ is not only a Saviour of few, but He offereth Himself to all. As often as the gospel is preached to us, we ought to consider that God calleth us to Him: and if we attend to this call, it shall not be in vain, neither shall it be lost labour…"Therefore, we may be so much the more assured that God taketh and holdeth us for His children, if we endeavour to bring those to Him who are afar off. Let us comfort ourselves, and take courage in this our calling: although there be at this day a great forlornness, though we seem to be miserable creatures, utterly cast away and condemned, yet we must labour as much as possible to draw those to salvation who seem to be afar off. And above all things, let us pray to God for them, waiting patiently till it please Him to show His good will toward them, as He hath shown it to us." (Sermon on 1 Timothy 2:3-5)​

​

​

​

CALVIN SAW THE LACK OF EVANGELISM AS A FIGURATIVE LEAVING OF CHRIST IN THE TOMB AND INDICATED AN UNTHANKFUL SPIRIT:​

​

"If the gospel be not preached,​

Jesus Christ is, as it were, buried. Therefore, let us stand as witnesses, and do Him this honour, when we see all the world so far out of the way; and remain steadfast in this wholesome doctrine…Let us here observe that St. Paul condemns our unthankfulness, if we be so unfaithful to God, as not to bear witness of His gospel; seeing He hath called us to it." (Sermon on 2 Timothy 1:8-9)​

​

​

​

CALVIN BELIEVED IN WINNING JEWS TO THE OBEDIENCE OF THE GOSPEL AND HAD A STRATEGY TO DO:​

​

​

​

"Yea and when we have to do with any Jews, which are not acquainted with our customs, and that we go about to win them and draw them to the obedience of the Gospel: we must for a time (in being conversant with them) abstain from the things which they think to be foresended [prohibited]." (Sermon on Galatians 2:6-8)​

​

​

​

CALVIN'S FAITH IN THE SOVEREIGN PURPOSES OF GOD DID NOT RULE OUT HIS RECOGNITION OF THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PREACHER :​

​

"It is enough for us to bear this only in mind, that the gospel does not fall like rain from the clouds, but is brought by the hands of men wherever it is sent from above… But hence we also learn how much ought all good men to desire, and how much they ought to value the preaching of the gospel, which is thus commended to us by the mouth of the Lord himself. Nor is there indeed a doubt, but that God has thus highly spoken of the incomparable value of this treasure, for the purpose of awakening the minds of all, so that they may anxiously desire it. Take feet, by metonymy, for coming." (Comments on Romans 10:14)​

​

​

​

CALVIN RECOGNISED THAT GOD USUALLY EMPLOYED PREACHERS TO BUILD HIS CHURCH INSTEAD OF BRINGING SINNERS IN BY USING SECRET INFLUENCES:​

​

​

"This points out to us also the ordinary method of collecting a Church, which is, by the outward voice of men; for though God might bring each person to himself by a secret influence, yet he employs the agency of men, that he may awaken in them an anxiety about the salvation of each other." (Comments on Isaiah 2:3)​

​

​

​

CALVIN TAUGHT THAT THE GODLY ARE TO USE ALL MEANS TO WIN OVER THOSE STILL WITHOUT THE GOSPEL AND ALIENS TO THE FLOCK AND BESTOW SO MUCH LABOUR UPON THEM:​

​

​

"Having said, "Not forsaking the assembling together," he adds, But exhorting one another; by which he intimates that all the godly ought by all means possible to exert themselves in the work of gathering together the Church on every side; for we are called by the Lord on this condition, that every one should afterwards strive to lead others to the truth, to restore the wandering to the right way, to extend a helping hand to the fallen, to win over those who are without. But if we ought to bestow so much labour on those who are yet aliens to the flock of Christ, how much more diligence is required in exhorting the brethren whom God has already joined to us?" (Comments on Hebrews 10:25)​

​

​

​

CALVIN TAUGHT THAT GOD USES OUR EXERTIONS IN GOSPEL PREACHING GOSPEL AND THAT WE, GOD'S INSTRUMENTS, PREACH BY HIS COMMAND:​

​

​

"Again, when Christ says, not that the ministers of the word sow, but that he alone sows, this is not without meaning; for though this cannot be supposed to be restricted to his person, yet as he makes use of our exertions, and employs us as his instruments, for cultivating his field, so that He alone acts by us and in us, he justly claims for himself what is, in some respects, common to his ministers. Let us, therefore, remember, that the Gospel is preached, not only by Christ’s command, but by his authority. and direction; in short, that we are only his hand, and that He alone is the Author of the work." (Comments on Matthew 13:37)​

​

​

​

CALVIN USED DAVID'S EXAMPLE TO INTIMATE THAT HAVING PARTAKEN OF GOD'S MERCY OURSELVES, WE ARE BECOME HERALDS OF IT OURSELVES:​

​

​

In another place we find him declaring that a new song had been put in his mouth, (Psalm 40:3,) and it seems to be in this sense that he here desires his lips to be opened. He again signifies the gratitude which he would feel, and which he would express, intimating, that he sought the mercy of God with no other view than that he might become the herald of it to others. My mouth, he says emphatically, shall show forth thy praise. (Comments on Psalm 51:16)​

​

​

​

CALVIN REGARDED THE DISREGARDING OF EVANGELISM AS INCONSISTENT WITH SAVING FAITH AND BELIEVED THAT THE GREATER A MAN'S EMINENCE…THE MORE DILIGENTLY HE WAS TO LABOUR:​

​

​

And shall say, Come. By these words he first declares that the godly will be filled with such an ardent desire to spread the doctrines of religion, that every one not satisfied with his own calling and his personal knowledge will desire to draw others along with him. And indeed nothing could be more inconsistent with the nature of faith than that deadness which would lead a man to disregard his brethren, and to keep the light of knowledge choked up within his own breast. The greater the eminence above others which any man has received from his calling so much the more diligently ought he to labour to enlighten others. (Comments on Isaiah 2:3)​

​

​

​

​

​

​

CALVIN SAW IT AS A CHRISTIAN DUTY TO BE LIKE A BURNING LAMP, ENDEAVOURING TO DRAW MEN WHO ARE ESTRANGED FROM GOD AND HIS TRUTH:​

Generally, because we have the gospel freely preached here among us, and because we ought everywhere to be like a burning lamp to show the way of salvation [John 5:35] And particularly, by every man discharging his own duty that we give no cause of offence to our neighbours, but rather endeavour to draw to us those are estranged from God and his truth. (Sermon on Ephesians 4:6-8 BOT p340)​

​

​

​

CALVIN SAID IT WAS TRULY THE PRINCIPLE THING TO SHOW MEN THE WAY OF SALVATION:​

​

​

It is true that the principle thing we have to look to is to teach the ignorant and to show them the way of salvation."​

(Sermon on Ephesians 4:29-30 BOT p463)​

​

​

​

CALVIN SAID WE OUGHT TO PROMOTE THE SALVATION OF OUR NEIGHBOURS:​

​

​

Now if we ought to promote the salvation of our neighbours, and also their temporal benefit and welfare, what will be thought of it if we wickedly seduce them and quench and abolish in them all fear of God? (Sermon on Ephesians 4:29-30 BOT p463)​

​

​

​

​

More examples can be found here, from which the above are posted.​

 

[Espada]

Much of his writing can be downloaded here

 

[frumanchu]

Yes. His writings are of tremendous value. Even Arminius held it in high regard.

 

[Edial]

Many associate the Calvinist's mood that they encounter today with Calvin.

Some of us (non-5-Point-Calvinists) might have a "run-in" with a 5-Point-Calvinist that can often end up in an unproductive encounter.

Personally speaking, I did think of Calvin in that same context.


What changed my mind concerning him was his reference in his Last Will and Testament that he no longer thought that Christ died only for the elect, but the whole world.

That shook me up considerably. It changed my mind concerning the man.

There are also some commentaries of his on the topic.


Many Calvinist's do accept that he did say that. Some say they do not see that in the text.



The text as it was forwarded to me some time ago.


Quote: The three below commentaries are offered as encouragement that ALL are called to salvation by God.1 John 2:2--"he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world"--Commentary as follows: "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 NOT FOR A PART OF THE WORLD ONLY, BUT FOR THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE; for although in the world nothing is found worthy of the favor of God, yet he HOLDS OUT THE PROPITIATION TO THE WHOLE WORLD, since without exception he SUMMONS ALL TO THE FAITH OF CHRIST, which is nothing else than the door unto hope."

Mark 14:24 -- "And He said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, WHICH IS SHED FOR MANY." Commentary as follows: "The word many DOES GOT MEAN A PART OF THE WORLD ONLY, BUT THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE: he contrasts many with one as if to say that he would not be the Redeemer of one man, but would meet death to deliver many of their cursed guilt. No doubt that in speaking to a few Christ wished to make His teaching available to a larger number...So when we come to the holy table not only should the general idea come to our mind that THE WORLD IS REDEEMED BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST but also each should reckon to himself that his own sins are covered."

Romans 5:18 -- "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." Comment as follows: "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."

John Calvin


Also


Quote: Calvin's "LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT, April 25, 1564" as printed in the History of the Christian Church, Vol. 8, pp. 828-29, by Philip Schaff [as published by Eerdmans in Grand Rapids, 1972], states: "I testify also and declare, that I suppliantly beg of Him, that He may be pleased so to was and purify me in the blood which my Sovereign Redeemer HAS SHED FOR THE SINS OF THE HUMAN RACE, that under His shadow I may be able to stand at the judgment-seat...."(op. cit., p 829). Here is a clear testimony made by John Calvin who was about to die, in 1564, that He, at least at the end of his life, had come to believe most definitely that the Lord Jesus Christ "SHED" his precious "BLOOD" "FOR THE SINS OF THE HUMAN RACE "




Thanks,
Ed

 

[frumanchu]

Dr Roger Nicole did some careful research in showing that Calvin did indeed believe in Limited Atonement.

From the article, regarding the above:

Norman F. Douty published in 1972 a volume entitled The Death of Christ: A Treatise Which Considers the Question: “Did Christ die only for the Elect?” A revised and enlarged edition appeared in 1978. Douty refers repeatedly to Calvin and quotes his comments on Mark 14:24; John 1:29; 3:16, 17 ; 12:47 ; 16:7; Rom 5:18; Gal 3:10, 11; Col 1:14 mostly to demonstrate that the words “all,” “world,” “many” are construed by Calvin as having a race-wide reference. He also lists the passages quoted by Armstrong and concludes his book with a reference to Calvin’s last will and testament. The important words are as follows: “…I…seek…to be washed and purified by the great Redeemer’s blood, shed for the sins of the human race.”

The French original reads “shed for all poor sinners,” and the absence of the article might favor the connotation “all kinds of poor sinners.” The point of Calvin appears here not to be whether Christ offered himself for the whole race or for the redeemed only—a matter that would scarcely be relevant to the last will and testament—but rather that Calvin’s hope of justification rested in God’s willingness to receive “poor sinners” among whom Calvin did not hesitate to number himself.
​

I do believe that some modern day Calvinists have trouble properly articulating (or understanding) the Reformed view of Limited Atonement, but despite numerous attempts to argue to the contrary John Calvin did indeed believe in Limited Atonement.

 

[Edial]

Dr Roger Nicole did some careful research in showing that Calvin did indeed believe in Limited Atonement.

From the article, regarding the above:

Norman F. Douty published in 1972 a volume entitled The Death of Christ: A Treatise Which Considers the Question: “Did Christ die only for the Elect?” A revised and enlarged edition appeared in 1978. Douty refers repeatedly to Calvin and quotes his comments on Mark 14:24; John 1:29; 3:16, 17 ; 12:47 ; 16:7; Rom 5:18; Gal 3:10, 11; Col 1:14 mostly to demonstrate that the words “all,” “world,” “many” are construed by Calvin as having a race-wide reference. He also lists the passages quoted by Armstrong and concludes his book with a reference to Calvin’s last will and testament. The important words are as follows: “…I…seek…to be washed and purified by the great Redeemer’s blood, shed for the sins of the human race.”


The French original reads “shed for all poor sinners,” and the absence of the article might favor the connotation “all kinds of poor sinners.” The point of Calvin appears here not to be whether Christ offered himself for the whole race or for the redeemed only—a matter that would scarcely be relevant to the last will and testament—but rather that Calvin’s hope of justification rested in God’s willingness to receive “poor sinners” among whom Calvin did not hesitate to number himself.

​

I do believe that some modern day Calvinists have trouble properly articulating (or understanding) the Reformed view of Limited Atonement, but despite numerous attempts to argue to the contrary John Calvin did indeed believe in Limited Atonement.

Since the author of a "careful research" certainly cannot know Calvin's mind and intent, the plain quotes of his commentaries can be referred to as is.

Unless of course one can show that it is not so from his own commentaries.

What problems do you personally see with these texts?

Quote: The three below commentaries are offered as encouragement that ALL are called to salvation by God.1 John 2:2--"he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world"--Commentary as follows: "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 NOT FOR A PART OF THE WORLD ONLY, BUT FOR THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE; for although in the world nothing is found worthy of the favor of God, yet he HOLDS OUT THE PROPITIATION TO THE WHOLE WORLD, since without exception he SUMMONS ALL TO THE FAITH OF CHRIST, which is nothing else than the door unto hope."

Mark 14:24 -- "And He said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, WHICH IS SHED FOR MANY." Commentary as follows: "The word many DOES GOT MEAN A PART OF THE WORLD ONLY, BUT THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE: he contrasts many with one as if to say that he would not be the Redeemer of one man, but would meet death to deliver many of their cursed guilt. No doubt that in speaking to a few Christ wished to make His teaching available to a larger number...So when we come to the holy table not only should the general idea come to our mind that THE WORLD IS REDEEMED BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST but also each should reckon to himself that his own sins are covered."

Romans 5:18 -- "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." Comment as follows: "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."

John Calvin


Also


Quote: Calvin's "LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT, April 25, 1564" as printed in the History of the Christian Church, Vol. 8, pp. 828-29, by Philip Schaff [as published by Eerdmans in Grand Rapids, 1972], states: "I testify also and declare, that I suppliantly beg of Him, that He may be pleased so to was and purify me in the blood which my Sovereign Redeemer HAS SHED FOR THE SINS OF THE HUMAN RACE, that under His shadow I may be able to stand at the judgment-seat...."(op. cit., p 829). Here is a clear testimony made by John Calvin who was about to die, in 1564, that He, at least at the end of his life, had come to believe most definitely that the Lord Jesus Christ "SHED" his precious "BLOOD" "FOR THE SINS OF THE HUMAN RACE "


Thanks,
Ed

 

[frumanchu]

I think it's safe to assume, since your post was a mere twelve minutes after mine, that you did not bother to actually read the article I linked to. If you had read it, you would know that the author addresses the types of phrases you bolded above using both Calvin's overall theology and specific references from his works.

I have no problem with the texts at all, only with the false conclusions being drawn from them.

I've seen this argument several times before, Ed. Typically what this leads to is a declaration that either a) "Calvin himself wasn't a Calvinist", b) Calvinists so idolize/exalt the man Calvin that they refuse to acknowledge their disagreement with him, or c) that "Calvinism" is so reliant upon the teachings of one man that Calvinists cannot allow Calvin's teachings to be questioned.

The simple fact is that this argument fails to prove any of those three because Calvin's words are being twisted into saying more than they do.

Now, perhaps you can focus on the original post and dispense with this tired old argument

 

[Espada]

I've seen this argument several times before, Ed. Typically what this leads to is a declaration that either a) "Calvin himself wasn't a Calvinist", b) Calvinists so idolize/exalt the man Calvin that they refuse to acknowledge their disagreement with him, or c) that "Calvinism" is so reliant upon the teachings of one man that Calvinists cannot allow Calvin's teachings to be questioned.

Calvin was just a man, so what if Calvin wasn't Calvinist, it is not Calvin I follow, but Calvinism and only then because it is in the Bible, just a useful phrase to describe what I believe.

Calvinism is reliant on the teachings of more than just Calvin, there are influences in there from others such as Luther and Beza.

 

[frumanchu]

Calvin was just a man, so what if Calvin wasn't Calvinist, it is not Calvin I follow, but Calvinism and only then because it is in the Bible, just a useful phrase to describe what I believe.

Calvinism is reliant on the teachings of more than just Calvin, there are influences in there from others such as Luther and Beza.

Oh, I agree, Espada. I'm simply tired of the accusations against Calvin himself. If we let false accusations stand, then we end up hearing constantly the ridiculous argument of "if he did this/believed this, then what does that say about those who are Calvinists?" If we defend against the accusations, then we end up hearing the ridiculous argument that we idolize Calvin and think him infallible.

 

[frumanchu]

Quote: The three below commentaries are offered as encouragement that ALL are called to salvation by God.1 John 2:2--"he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world"--Commentary as follows: "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 NOT FOR A PART OF THE WORLD ONLY, BUT FOR THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE; for although in the world nothing is found worthy of the favor of God, yet he HOLDS OUT THE PROPITIATION TO THE WHOLE WORLD, since without exception he SUMMONS ALL TO THE FAITH OF CHRIST, which is nothing else than the door unto hope."

Mark 14:24 -- "And He said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, WHICH IS SHED FOR MANY." Commentary as follows: "The word many DOES GOT MEAN A PART OF THE WORLD ONLY, BUT THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE: he contrasts many with one as if to say that he would not be the Redeemer of one man, but would meet death to deliver many of their cursed guilt. No doubt that in speaking to a few Christ wished to make His teaching available to a larger number...So when we come to the holy table not only should the general idea come to our mind that THE WORLD IS REDEEMED BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST but also each should reckon to himself that his own sins are covered."

Romans 5:18 -- "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." Comment as follows: "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."

John Calvin


Also


Quote: Calvin's "LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT, April 25, 1564" as printed in the History of the Christian Church, Vol. 8, pp. 828-29, by Philip Schaff [as published by Eerdmans in Grand Rapids, 1972], states: "I testify also and declare, that I suppliantly beg of Him, that He may be pleased so to was and purify me in the blood which my Sovereign Redeemer HAS SHED FOR THE SINS OF THE HUMAN RACE, that under His shadow I may be able to stand at the judgment-seat...."(op. cit., p 829). Here is a clear testimony made by John Calvin who was about to die, in 1564, that He, at least at the end of his life, had come to believe most definitely that the Lord Jesus Christ "SHED" his precious "BLOOD" "FOR THE SINS OF THE HUMAN RACE "

The simple and plain fact is that, just as with Scripture itself, people are reading into Calvin's words more than is there. One of the great mysteries revealed in NT times was the extension of God's covenant beyond the nation of Israel to men of every tribe, tongue and nation. This was a radical thing which even Peter was slow to accept. God no longer poured out His covenant blessings upon Israel only, but called men from all the world.

Calvin simply repeats this notion. The true Israel is not limited to the biological line of descendants from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but is expanded to the spiritual descendants the world over.

 

[Edial]

The simple and plain fact is that, just as with Scripture itself, people are reading into Calvin's words more than is there. One of the great mysteries revealed in NT times was the extension of God's covenant beyond the nation of Israel to men of every tribe, tongue and nation. This was a radical thing which even Peter was slow to accept. God no longer poured out His covenant blessings upon Israel only, but called men from all the world.

Calvin simply repeats this notion. The true Israel is not limited to the biological line of descendants from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but is expanded to the spiritual descendants the world over.

So, ... since the extension of God's covenant went beyond Israel to men from all over the world (you mean the chosen ones only), then the following verses and the comments to them mean not the whole (the rest) of the world, but "some" that are from the rest of the world?

1JN 2:2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

Calvin's comments - "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 NOT FOR A PART OF THE WORLD ONLY, BUT FOR THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE; for although in the world nothing is found worthy of the favor of God, yet he HOLDS OUT THE PROPITIATION TO THE WHOLE WORLD, since without exception he SUMMONS ALL TO THE FAITH OF CHRIST, which is nothing else than the door unto hope.


MK 14:24 "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them.



Calvin's comments - "The word many DOES GOT MEAN A PART OF THE WORLD ONLY, BUT THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE: he contrasts many with one as if to say that he would not be the Redeemer of one man, but would meet death to deliver many of their cursed guilt. No doubt that in speaking to a few Christ wished to make His teaching available to a larger number...So when we come to the holy table not only should the general idea come to our mind that THE WORLD IS REDEEMED BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST but also each should reckon to himself that his own sins are covered."



So when he says that the word "many" does not mean a part of the world only, but the whole human race, you are saying that he does not mean that?




RO 5:18 Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.


Calvin's comments - "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."

And where he specifically states that the grace is offered to all men without distinction you would say that his "all men" does not mean "all men", but "some from all men".

But then Calvin states that some of these to whom the grace is offered will not receive it.
And since you say that Irresistable Grace is in effect - how does that fit?




And, when he stated these words in his Last Will and Testament where he repented of the Limited Atonement one cannot find it possible for anyone to do so?


Calvin's "LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT, April 25, 1564" as printed in the History of the Christian Church, Vol. 8, pp. 828-29, by Philip Schaff [as published by Eerdmans in Grand Rapids, 1972], states:
"I testify also and declare, that I suppliantly beg of Him, that He may be pleased so to was and purify me in the blood which my Sovereign Redeemer HAS SHED FOR THE SINS OF THE HUMAN RACE, that under His shadow I may be able to stand at the judgment-seat...."(op. cit., p 829). Here is a clear testimony made by John Calvin who was about to die, in 1564, that He, at least at the end of his life, had come to believe most definitely that the Lord Jesus Christ "SHED" his precious "BLOOD" "FOR THE SINS OF THE HUMAN RACE "

And then you are making this statement - The simple and plain fact is that, just as with Scripture itself, people are reading into Calvin's words more than is there.

Are you certain that it is us that are reading into Calvin's comments and "reading into Scriptures"?

Ed

 

[frumanchu]

So, ... since the extension of God's covenant went beyond Israel to men from all over the world (you mean the chosen ones only), then the following verses and the comments to them mean not the whole (the rest) of the world, but "some" that are from the rest of the world?

It means the presentation is not limited to any one subset group of the human race but rather the human race in its entirety (meaning there is no distinction made based upon ethnicity, station, wealth, etc).

So when he says that the word "many" does not mean a part of the world only, but the whole human race, you are saying that he does not mean that?

No, I am saying he does mean that. And I am also saying that your conclusion about what that necessarily implies is false.

And where he specifically states that the grace is offered to all men without distinction you would say that his "all men" does not mean "all men", but "some from all men".

I would say that it means "all types of men" which is a perfectly valid and contextually supported understanding of the Greek pas in most of those versese.

But then Calvin states that some of these to whom the grace is offered will not receive it. And since you say that Irresistable Grace is in effect - how does that fit?

Christ is the redeemer of the whole world in the sense that He is the means by which the world is redeemed and that the offer of redemption is not limited to any particular group or type of people. However, only those whom He efficaciously regenerates and inwardly calls will lay hold of that grace.

And, when he stated these words in his Last Will and Testament where he repented of the Limited Atonement one cannot find it possible for anyone to do so?

See, that's where you reveal who it is that's really reading their position into things. Nowhere does Calvin say anything about repenting of any position he formerly held, and in fact it is wholly inconsistent for you to claim such given that his words here are nearly identical to those from his other works which you've liberally pasted all over this thread.

As I've explained (and as the article I linked to explains at length), Christ's atonement was not limited in scope to any particular nation or subset of humanity, but is offered to all men without distinction.

And then you are making this statement - The simple and plain fact is that, just as with Scripture itself, people are reading into Calvin's words more than is there.

Are you certain that it is us that are reading into Calvin's comments and "reading into Scriptures"?

Yes. Quite. The article I cited deals quite specifically and thoroughly with what Calvin believed with respect to the atonement. Repeatedly posting the same few snippets of his works over and over again and accompanying them with flawed conclusions does not change that.

Now, do you wish to comment on the topic of this thread...Calvin's view on evangelism...or not?

 

[Edial]

.....

Christ is the redeemer of the whole world in the sense that He is the means by which the world is redeemed and that the offer of redemption is not limited to any particular group or type of people. However, only those whom He efficaciously regenerates and inwardly calls will lay hold of that grace.


.....
As I've explained (and as the article I linked to explains at length), Christ's atonement was not limited in scope to any particular nation or subset of humanity, but is offered to all men without distinction.

So, ... Christ's atonement was offered to all without distinction.

OK. And what good is this offer when it was not "backed up" by his blood - if he did not die for them?

..... Yes. Quite. The article I cited deals quite specifically and thoroughly with what Calvin believed with respect to the atonement. Repeatedly posting the same few snippets of his works over and over again and accompanying them with flawed conclusions does not change that.

I think the concern that you have of posting quotes "all over this thread" is a bit exaggerated. That thread was only about 10-11 posts young.

And since you are also an administrator you would probably know that another admin already deleted one of my posts claiming that I am repeating myself.

..... Now, do you wish to comment on the topic of this thread...Calvin's view on evangelism...or not?

In order for me to comment on Calvin and his desire and zeal on evangelism, I would need to understand concerning his views on Limited Atonement, since in the eyes of many - Limited Atonement and Evangelism go hand in hand.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[frumanchu]

So, ... Christ's atonement was offered to all without distinction.

OK. And what good is this offer when it was not "backed up" by his blood - if he did not die for them?

Who said it was not "backed up" by His blood? I just said His atonement was sufficient for all men. The question is not one of sufficiency but one of intent.

He died for His sheep. He died for His Bride.

That the external call of the Gospel is universal does not mean that therefore it is God's will to save every individual. He offers knowing who will accept and who will reject, and He knows because He has ordained it thus.

I think the concern that you have of posting quotes "all over this thread" is a bit exaggerated. That thread was only about 10-11 posts young.

Three straight posts quoting the same thing verbatim? I don't think it's exaggerated at all.

In order for me to comment on Calvin and his desire and zeal on evangelism, I would need to understand concerning his views on Limited Atonement, since in the eyes of many - Limited Atonement and Evangelism go hand in hand.

Actually the whole point is that belief in Limited Atonement does NOT undermine evangelism.

 

[Edial]

Who said it was not "backed up" by His blood? I just said His atonement was sufficient for all men. The question is not one of sufficiency but one of intent..

When one offers salvation to every human being as you agree that Calvin said, then the intent of the one that offers it is quite clear.
He wants them to be saved.

He died for His sheep. He died for His Bride.

Sure he died for His sheep and His bride. But nowhere in the Bible it states that je died ONLY for them, and you probably know that.

That the external call of the Gospel is universal does not mean that therefore it is God's will to save every individual. .

Of course it is not, because some reject.

He offers knowing who will accept and who will reject, and He knows because He has ordained it thus.

If it is his desire that they be saved - why create a creature destined for hell and with no chance of salvation?

I mean, are the desire of God and the will of God in such a conflict?

He desires so that they be saved, then gives birth to them and then blocks every possibility for them to be saved?

And then he is sending his Son to them and He is telling them to repent, only to know that it is an impossibility?

Three straight posts quoting the same thing verbatim? I don't think it's exaggerated at all..

I don't know, maybe one of them was a double-post.
Could be.
And the admins were diligent on this one right off the bat.
No problem.

Actually the whole point is that belief in Limited Atonement does NOT undermine evangelism.

That is what you are saying.
What I am saying is that in order for me to comment on the topic of evangelism and Calvin I need to understand his views on the Limited Atonement.
Because I believe that Evangelism and Limited Atonement are very much relevant to each other.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[frumanchu]

When one offers salvation to every human being as you agree that Calvin said, then the intent of the one that offers it is quite clear.
He wants them to be saved.

False. The command to obey does not imply the ability to obey. That God selectively grants obedience to His commands does not undermine the validity of those commands.

You may disagree philosophically, but it is a clear Scriptural teaching.

Sure he died for His sheep and His bride. But nowhere in the Bible it states that je died ONLY for them, and you probably know that.

Show me where Scripture says Jesus dies for (with the intent of saving) the goats.

If it is his desire that they be saved - why create a creature destined for hell and with no chance of salvation? I mean, are the desire of God and the will of God in such a conflict?

You operate from the false premise that God desires the salvation of every individual. If God knows from before time that George will not freely choose Him (and therefore is destined for Hell with no chance of salvation) then why create George?

He desires so that they be saved, then gives birth to them and then blocks every possibility for them to be saved?

No, He doesn't "block every possibility for them to be saved." He simply withholds the grace required to bring them to salvation. It's His prerogative to do so. To insist that He is obligated to extend the grace required for salvation to all individuals completely eradicates any notion of grace in salvation.

And then he is sending his Son to them and He is telling them to repent, only to know that it is an impossibility?

Yes. As I said, you may disagree philosophically, but it's a clear teaching in Scripture that He does so.

That is what you are saying. What I am saying is that in order for me to comment on the topic of evangelism and Calvin I need to understand his views on the Limited Atonement. Because I believe that Evangelism and Limited Atonement are very much relevant to each other.

It doesn't sound like you're interested in understanding his views on the Limited Atonement. It sounds like you're interested in declaring His views on it.

 

[Edial]

It doesn't sound like you're interested in understanding his views on the Limited Atonement. It sounds like you're interested in declaring His views on it.

I really am interested in understanding his views, since I see him not following the Limited Atonement.



Some Calvinists that I know of also agree on that.



You might be saying that they do not know better. May be.

But if a Calvinist cannot understand, then maybe it indeed is not as clear as you proclaim it to be.

False. The command to obey does not imply the ability to obey. That God selectively grants obedience to His commands does not undermine the validity of those commands.

You may disagree philosophically, but it is a clear Scriptural teaching.

It is good that you see a certain room for a philosophical disagreement. We'll discuss Scriptures later.

Sure he died for His sheep and His bride. But nowhere in the Bible it states that je died ONLY for them, and you probably know that.

Show me where Scripture says Jesus dies for (with the intent of saving) the goats.

I do not have to show that he also died specifically for the goats.
The burden of proof is on the 5-Point-Calvinists, since they are the ones that are dogmatically claiming that Christ died ONLY for the church.
Prove it.

You operate from the false premise that God desires the salvation of every individual. If God knows from before time that George will not freely choose Him (and therefore is destined for Hell with no chance of salvation) then why create George?

No.
The philosophical assumption is based on God's character that all will be given an equal "chance" for salvation.
The Scriptural evidence of Acts 17:24-28 supports that.
However, when one states that no such thing will be provided to all - it goes againts the character of God, who shows no partiality.

He desires so that they be saved, then gives birth to them and then blocks every possibility for them to be saved?

No, He doesn't "block every possibility for them to be saved." He simply withholds the grace required to bring them to salvation. It's His prerogative to do so. To insist that He is obligated to extend the grace required for salvation to all individuals completely eradicates any notion of grace in salvation.

Why does it eradicate any notion of grace in salvation?

And then he is sending his Son to them and He is telling them to repent, only to know that it is an impossibility?

Yes. As I said, you may disagree philosophically, but it's a clear teaching in Scripture that He does so.

Clear? Really?
How do you deal then with clear statements in the NT that he loves all?
I cannot find (and neither can you) that he hates anyone in the NT.
The one or two references of hating people in the NT are the quotes from the OT.
He hates the sin, but not the doer of that sin in the NT.
His relationship towards humanity has changed at the death of his Son, hasn't it?
New Covenant?

Thanks,
Ed

 

[frumanchu]

I really am interested in understanding his views, since I see him not following the Limited Atonement. Some Calvinists that I know of also agree on that. You might be saying that they do not know better. May be.
But if a Calvinist cannot understand, then maybe it indeed is not as clear as you proclaim it to be.

OR...maybe he is not really a Calvinist. Certainly not Reformed.

It is good that you see a certain room for a philosophical disagreement. We'll discuss Scriptures later.

I think in the case of this particular doctrine it sometimes becomes very difficult to separate the two.

I do not have to show that he also died specifically for the goats.
The burden of proof is on the 5-Point-Calvinists, since they are the ones that are dogmatically claiming that Christ died ONLY for the church.
Prove it.

So why is it that the burden of proof is on me when historical, creedal Reformed Theology has always consistently maintained a limited atonement? You need to decide what your purpose is here, Ed. Are you primarily concerned with arguing the doctrine of Limited Atonement itself, or whether or not Calvin believed in the doctrine of the Limited Atonement as it has historically been presented by Reformers (Calvinists)?

If it's the former, then you need to start your own thread. If it's the latter, then the point you are trying to make here has nothing to do with it. Whether the doctrine is Scriptural or not does not have any bearing on whether or not Calvin believed it.

No.
The philosophical assumption is based on God's character that all will be given an equal "chance" for salvation. The Scriptural evidence of Acts 17:24-28 supports that.

Sorry, but that Scripture does not establish God's character that "all will be given an equal chance for salvation." It does establish my point though.

All me are obgligated to seek after God (v27). None do (Rom 3:11). God commands the repentance of all men (Acts 17:30), but also grants repentance to those He chooses (2 Tim 2:25).

However, when one states that no such thing will be provided to all - it goes againts the character of God, who shows no partiality.

God shows no partiality to man with respect to whether or not they have the Law. All men are condemned under it, Jew or Gentile. Hence the doctrine of UNconditional Election. You are wrestling this verse from it's context and forcing it to support a philosophical precept it was never intended to address.

Why does it eradicate any notion of grace in salvation?

Grace and obligation are antithetical. If something is done out of obligation, it is not grace but duty. It is not mercy but justice.

God was not obligated to send His Only Begotten Son to die on the cross, and having done so He surely is not obligated to offer that sacrifice to all, and having done so He is most certainly not obligated to remove the hardness of hearts which keeps men from accepting it so that they will do so.

The moment you say that God was obligated to do any of the above, you completely undermine both His justice and His mercy.

Clear? Really?How do you deal then with clear statements in the NT that he loves all?

In their proper context.

I cannot find (and neither can you) that he hates anyone in the NT.

Well, that depends. If you're doing a keyword search for "hate" then no, you probably won't find it. If you are looking at God's wrath, which is directed at those who sin (not merely at the sin itself), then it's all over the New Testament.

The one or two references of hating people in the NT are the quotes from the OT.He hates the sin, but not the doer of that sin in the NT.
His relationship towards humanity has changed at the death of his Son, hasn't it? New Covenant?

No, God does not deal with His people differently. That shows how thoroughly the Dispensationalist errors have infiltrated Western Christianity. The New Covenant is not the complete overhaul of the Old, it is the expansion of the Old. God has always justified men by faith. The covenant framework of redemptive history is not merely successive but also progressive.

Anyway, if you want to argue whether the doctrine of Limited Atonement is Scriptural, feel free to start your own thread on it. If you want to discuss whether John Calvin believed it or not, then stick to that line of discussion please.

 

[Edial]

really am interested in understanding his views, since I see him not following the Limited Atonement. Some Calvinists that I know of also agree on that. You might be saying that they do not know better. May be.
But if a Calvinist cannot understand, then maybe it indeed is not as clear as you proclaim it to be..

OR...maybe he is not really a Calvinist. Certainly not Reformed..

Well, in the thread that I opened some time ago (Calvinism does not exist) I have some Calvinists that dusagree with Calvin's understanding of atonement.
One even flatly stated that Calvin was wrong.
You most probably know him from these forums as a staunch Calvinist.
I pasted the link below.

I do not have to show that he also died specifically for the goats.
The burden of proof is on the 5-Point-Calvinists, since they are the ones that are dogmatically claiming that Christ died ONLY for the church.
Prove it...

So why is it that the burden of proof is on me when historical, creedal Reformed Theology has always consistently maintained a limited atonement?

Because, and I am repeating myself, the 5-Point-Calvinists are the ones that are dogmatically claiming that Christ died ONLY for the church.

And it is not relevant what historical, creedal theology schools maintained. Various teachings differ from each other, therefore not all can be correct in what they teach.

You need to decide what your purpose is here, Ed. Are you primarily concerned with arguing the doctrine of Limited Atonement itself, or whether or not Calvin believed in the doctrine of the Limited Atonement as it has historically been presented by Reformers (Calvinists)?

When I quoted Calvins quotes concerning the Limited Atonement I showed my intent.
You even complained that I quoted it too often.
By saying that you confirmed my intent.

If it's the former, then you need to start your own thread.

But I did already some time ago - http://www.christianforums.com/t1654458-calvinism-does-not-exist.html

If it's the latter, then the point you are trying to make here has nothing to do with it. Whether the doctrine is Scriptural or not does not have any bearing on whether or not Calvin believed it..

..... Anyway, if you want to argue whether the doctrine of Limited Atonement is Scriptural, feel free to start your own thread on it. If you want to discuss whether John Calvin believed it or not, then stick to that line of discussion please.

You do have a point here.
However, by presenting that the Limited Atonement is not Scriptural, it supports a view I hold (and Calvin's quotes) that he ultimately did not believe in a Limited Atonement.

Sorry, but that Scripture does not establish God's character that "all will be given an equal chance for salvation." It does establish my point though.

AC 17:24 "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. 25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. 26 From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. 27 God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. 28 `For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, `We are his offspring.'

Why doesn't it?

In v.26 and 27 we see that all humans have their places and times of birth (and societies) predetrmined for one reason only - so that they would seek him and perhabs reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.

(And we can discuss "us" if you wish).

All me are obgligated to seek after God (v27). None do (Rom 3:11). God commands the repentance of all men (Acts 17:30), but also grants repentance to those He chooses (2 Tim 2:25).

God shows no partiality to man with respect to whether or not they have the Law. All men are condemned under it, Jew or Gentile. Hence the doctrine of UNconditional Election. You are wrestling this verse from it's context and forcing it to support a philosophical precept it was never intended to address

But you are "chopping" at the Scriptures here. (I am not saying you are not presenting complete Scriptures).
Acts text presents what it presents.
Rom.3:11 and 2Tim.2:25 presents that we can do nothing on our own and God grants repentance.

And he does to the ones that are willing to repent.
Christ said for all to repent.

And concerning the "dead men not hearing anything"? It is flatly incorrect.
Dead men (technically speaking) can hear the call of Christ. there is a direct Scripture proving that.

So, I do not think that your point (which is correct in many ways) disproves the Acts presentation.

Why does it eradicate any notion of grace in salvation?.

Grace and obligation are antithetical. If something is done out of obligation, it is not grace but duty. It is not mercy but justice.

God was not obligated to send His Only Begotten Son to die on the cross, and having done so He surely is not obligated to offer that sacrifice to all, and having done so He is most certainly not obligated to remove the hardness of hearts which keeps men from accepting it so that they will do so.

The moment you say that God was obligated to do any of the above, you completely undermine both His justice and His mercy.

But I never said that God is doing anything out of obligation.
He cannot be obliged to anyone. He is God.

Yet God is presenting the salvation to all out of love, since he loves all.
Yet many will reject that love.

No obligation - just love. And, since he is Love in his very essense, it is "natural" for him to offer salvation to all.
No obligation.

Clear? Really?How do you deal then with clear statements in the NT that he loves all?

In their proper context.

Curious answer.
OK. How would you handle that?
MT 5:43 "You have heard that it was said, `Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

We are told to love (agape) our enemies because the Father also loves (agape) them.

I cannot find (and neither can you) that he hates anyone in the NT. ..

Well, that depends. If you're doing a keyword search for "hate" then no, you probably won't find it. If you are looking at God's wrath, which is directed at those who sin (not merely at the sin itself), then it's all over the New Testament..

I am talking about any Greek word for hate, abhor and so on.
Nothing. A startling difference from the OT.

And having the wrath come down upon the people does not mean that the people are hated.

They are still expected to repent as the wrath is coming down -
REV 16:8 The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was given power to scorch people with fire. 9 They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him.

REV 16:10 The fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and his kingdom was plunged into darkness. Men gnawed their tongues in agony 11 and cursed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, but they refused to repent of what they had done.

No, God does not deal with His people differently. That shows how thoroughly the Dispensationalist errors have infiltrated Western Christianity. The New Covenant is not the complete overhaul of the Old, it is the expansion of the Old. God has always justified men by faith. The covenant framework of redemptive history is not merely successive but also progressive.

It is absolutely progressive.
Christ fulfilled the Law - did not abolish it.
OT is a shadow of the NT.
The relationship of God towards the world (all people) changed in the NT, since the death and resurrection of his Son.

New Covenant. Death and Resurrection answered many unanswered points in the OT.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[frumanchu]

You do have a point here.However, by presenting that the Limited Atonement is not Scriptural, it supports a view I hold (and Calvin's quotes) that he ultimately did not believe in a Limited Atonement

No. Whether or not Limited Atonement is Scriptural has nothing to do with whether or not Calvin himself believed it.

Either stick to the issue of whether or not Calvin actually believed in Limited Atonement as presented by historical Calvinism, or please start your own thread if you want to further discuss whether or not the doctrine of Limited Atonement is Biblical. The purpose of this thread is NOT discussion of whether or not Limited Atonement is Scriptural.