Some Rough Questions

[AndOne]

Dr Olson is spot on. He hit the button of the myths that Calvinists and others perpetrate about Calvinism.

Somehow I doubt it.

That Dr James White (a TULIP Calvinist) would want to debunk Norman Geisler (a self proclaimed 'moderate Calvinist') is standard fare in love and theology. As I find out on this forum. You are one of those who does not like it when I respond as a Reformed Arminian to some of your posts.

You rarely respond to my posts. As to weather or not I "like" when you do - well that is a bit of an over dramatization as far as I'm concerned. Particularly when I have given you positive words from time to time. I haven't disagreed with everything you say.

Clearly though - you have a habit of misrepresenting Calvinism and Arminianism which I simply like to point out.

In regards to Geisler he is an Arminian as White pointed out in his book. There is no such thing as a "moderate Calvinist" as Geisler defines it - which is a joke among the Reformed.

But that won't cause me to go away.

. Always playing the victim. It gets old.

The non-TULIP Baptists in the SBC are not going to go away. This is demonstrated in the David L Allen and Steve W Lemke (eds) book, Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinist (B&H 2010).

Yea - that's too bad but I think they will always be in the minority and I am grateful for that.

 

[Petruchio]

So did Calvin believe in all 5-points of TULIP Calvinism? Was Calvin other than a Calvinist as you understand Calvinism?

A bit misleading to say it this way, since the 5-points is a formulation taken from Calvin's teachings after his time. I have seen silly arguments made by Arminians claiming that Calvin contradicted himself or even renounced his own teachings, but it's only because they themselves do not actually understand what we teach. I have a feeling you're about to make them, so go ahead.

 

[OzSpen]

An irrelevancy, since it is by the preaching of the word that God has decided to work. For example:

Act_13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

It seems the rest of your post falls into this same false premise.

It is annoying to have to read articles to get people's views about things. If you're going to engage in debate, bring your material here. It is no big deal even if you copy and paste your own material.

It might be irrelevant to you, but it was very relevant because the brother to whom I was responding stated:

The Gospel Message is not for sinners, but for those whom have received salvation. Jesus death was particular for those whom He died and not a general death dependent on those who would "decide" to follow Him.

As for the 'false premise' I think you mean, 'false, according to my (meaning your) premise'. It is only false if Calvinistic premises are affirmed at that point.

Thank you for drawing my attention to the point that it is annoying having to go to an online link to my article. I'll try to do better next time.

However, I hope you understand that it is also annoying to me when you quote Augustine, at length, to support your point. I cannot imagine that you would quote Augustine to come anywhere near my understanding of the exegesis of 1 John 2:2. Nice try, though!

Augustine, from what you wrote of his interpretation of 1 Tim 2:1-4, 'God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved', stated:

we are to understand by “all men,” the human race in all its varieties of rank and circumstances,—kings, subjects; noble, plebeian, high, low, learned, and unlearned; the sound in body, the feeble, the clever, the dull, the foolish, the rich, the poor, and those of middling circumstances; males, females, infants, boys, youths; young, middle-aged, and old men; of every tongue, of every fashion, of all arts, of all professions, with all the innumerable differences of will and conscience, and whatever else there is that makes a distinction among men. For which of all these classes is there out of which God does not will that men should be saved in all nations through His only-begotten Son, our Lord, and therefore does save them; for the Omnipotent cannot will in vain, whatsoever He may will?

In my seminary class on hermeneutics that could have been given as a classic example of eisegesis - bringing an interpretation into the sentence instead of obtaining the meaning out from the sentence, exegesis.

I'm not impressed when 'all people to be saved' is made to mean, 'the human race in all its varieties of rank and circumstances', whether that be by Augustine, Calvin, Spoul, or any other Calvinist. It is making 'all people' into 'all kinds of people'. The Greek language had way of doing the latter, but that is not what is meant by 'all people'. ALL = ALL, EVERYONE and 1 John 2:2 confirms this.

In Christ, Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Clearly though - you have a habit of misrepresenting Calvinism and Arminianism which I simply like to point out.

This is a fallacy of generalisation. We cannot have a logical discussion when you engage in that kind of rhetoric.

Oz

 

[jamantc]

Ozpen:
The believe among mainstream arminians (today's evangelical Christians) I have heard numerous times. God looked down the corridor of time and saw who would be accept His offer and who would reject His offer. Let's say this is what happened. It leads to the question, "is Jesus death effective for those whom God saw would reject it?". No, Jesus death is not effective to those who would not accept it. Therefore, it still makes Jesus death particular and not general. Imagine, those people living in hell at this very moment are their with their sins paid for just like those living in heaven at this particular moment. Whether in heaven or hell, all their sins were paid for according to your view. If rejection of Christ is a sin, that sin would be covered under Jesus death if all sin is already paid for. If unbelief is a sin, that sin too would already be paid for by Christ death since all sins are completely paid for. Which sin do they go to hell for, unbelief or rejection, both are sins completely paid for? What sin did Jesus not pay for if all sins have been paid in full? Jesus died for all those the Father gave Him. Jesus told the apostles they didn't choose Him, He chose them. If their will was so free, why did they continue to follow Him? Don't use Judas, Jesus had already told him he was of his father the devil. According to arminians, Jesus death has paid for all the sins of all who have ever lived. If this be the case, do those in hell prior to His birth and death get a second chance at salvation since their sin got paid for at the atonement? Again, unbelief and rejection are sins that have been paid for in full, therefore those who reject or don't believe have that sin covered too. Don't think my statement is silly, because it's not. If all sins are paid for, unbelief and rejection are paid for too and that can't send someone to hell. Arminianism is nothing more than universalism at best because there isn't a sin that isn't paid for except blashphemy, which is not unbelief or rejection. And so you know, just in case you didn't, Calvinism is Austinianism, which is Paulism which is scripture. I'll stick to the God that chose Israel who chose to save me and give me the strength through the Spirit to accept Him as my savior. James says works were created for believers before the foundation of the world. Paul said Christ was the savior before the foundation of creation of the world. If all things were before the creation of the foundation of the world, who I am I no more than dust of the earth to question a God whose only purpose is to glorify Himself for the purpose of His own council and good pleasure!

 

[jamantc]

And that was a typo about the "not being for sinners". I was on my phone and could not see that I had posted that until I got to main computer. His death is not just for sinners, but for those sinners whom have received salvation through His redemptive death for those the Father have given Him. Sorry for that typo!!!

 

[Petruchio]

I'll try to do better next time.

All you have to do is copy and paste the material you want us to engage in. All too often, people just point to links and expect us to engage with an entire website instead of on the forum where the argument started.

However, I hope you understand that it is also annoying to me when you John Gill, a hyper-Calvinist, at length to support your point.I cannot imagine that you would quote Gill to come anywhere near my understanding of the exegesis of 1 John 2:2. Nice try, though!

In Christ, Oz

You don't really explain what is "annoying" to you about using Gill. He is not a hyper-Calvinist, and he is not incorrect in his facts on how the Jews use terms like "all the men of the world" and other such like phrases. That's why I provided the references. I also backed it up with the scripture.

It's interesting the turn your argument has taken.

If you are going to engage in these debates, you must make arguments that actually apply to what we do confess. Not what we do not confess. Nor does simply attacking us on a personal level, accusing us of being hyper-calvininsts, or anything of that sort, help you in your cause.

You either must deal with the subject at hand, its substance, or you don't. Otherwise you will always remain on the losing end of these debates.

 

[OzSpen]

Ozpen:
The believe among mainstream arminians (today's evangelical Christians) I have heard numerous times. God looked down the corridor of time and saw who would be accept His offer and who would reject His offer. Let's say this is what happened. It leads to the question, "is Jesus death effective for those whom God saw would reject it?". No, Jesus death is not effective to those who would not accept it. Therefore, it still makes Jesus death particular and not general. Imagine, those people living in hell at this very moment are their with their sins paid for just like those living in heaven at this particular moment. Whether in heaven or hell, all their sins were paid for according to your view. If rejection of Christ is a sin, that sin would be covered under Jesus death if all sin is already paid for. If unbelief is a sin, that sin too would already be paid for by Christ death since all sins are completely paid for. Which sin do they go to hell for, unbelief or rejection, both are sins completely paid for? What sin did Jesus not pay for if all sins have been paid in full? Jesus died for all those the Father gave Him. Jesus told the apostles they didn't choose Him, He chose them. If their will was so free, why did they continue to follow Him? Don't use Judas, Jesus had already told him he was of his father the devil. According to arminians, Jesus death has paid for all the sins of all who have ever lived. If this be the case, do those in hell prior to His birth and death get a second chance at salvation since their sin got paid for at the atonement? Again, unbelief and rejection are sins that have been paid for in full, therefore those who reject or don't believe have that sin covered too. Don't think my statement is silly, because it's not. If all sins are paid for, unbelief and rejection are paid for too and that can't send someone to hell. Arminianism is nothing more than universalism at best because there isn't a sin that isn't paid for except blashphemy, which is not unbelief or rejection. And so you know, just in case you didn't, Calvinism is Austinianism, which is Paulism which is scripture. I'll stick to the God that chose Israel who chose to save me and give me the strength through the Spirit to accept Him as my savior. James says works were created for believers before the foundation of the world. Paul said Christ was the savior before the foundation of creation of the world. If all things were before the creation of the foundation of the world, who I am I no more than dust of the earth to question a God whose only purpose is to glorify Himself for the purpose of His own council and good pleasure!

Why do you refuse to divide one long convoluted paragraph into a number of simple paragraphs to facilitate understanding? Aren't you listening to feedback and changing your ways?

 

[OzSpen]

You don't really explain what is "annoying" to you about using Gill. He is not a hyper-Calvinist, and he is not incorrect in his facts on how the Jews use terms like "all the men of the world" and other such like phrases. That's why I provided the references. I also backed it up with the scripture.

You are here referring to the email notification you received where I mentioned John Gill. That was my error. It was Augustine whom you quoted at length and I changed in in link #23 above.

 

[OzSpen]

Ozpen:
The believe among mainstream arminians (today's evangelical Christians) I have heard numerous times.

Who are these mainstream Arminians to whom you refer?

 

[Petruchio]

You are here referring to the email notification you received where I mentioned John Gill. That was my error. It was Augustine whom you quoted at length and I changed in in link #23 above.

Strange that you would refer to Augustine then as a hyper-Calvinist if you actually meant him all along. But, to your updated post:

However, I hope you understand that it is also annoying to me when you quote Augustine, at length, to support your point. I cannot imagine that you would quote Augustine to come anywhere near my understanding of the exegesis of 1 John 2:2. Nice try, though!

I quoted Augustine to support my use of the "every herb" verse to show the non-absolute nature of many of these "all" and 'everys" and other such verses in scripture, which, by the way, you did not engage with any of them. I consider the argument well proved already with what I have provided, unless you intend to deal with the weight of the Jewish authority, Augustine, and the scripture verses, which are quite heavy. I also used Augustine since it shows that the understanding, by long history, has not been alien or unnatural throughout the centuries.

Just ignoring them and moving on does not make them go away.

In my seminary class on hermeneutics that could have been given as a classic example of eisegesis - bringing an interpretation into the sentence instead of obtaining the meaning out from the sentence, exegesis.

Augustine's argument is based on the context of the passage, as well as other verses, therefore, it is not eisegesis. You can't just throw out an assertion and expect people to believe it, just because you are in seminary. Lots of heretics come out of seminary too.

I'm not impressed when 'all people to be saved' is made to mean, 'the human race in all its varieties of rank and circumstances', whether that be by Augustine, Calvin, Spoul, or any other Calvinist.

You forgot to add to your list: The Jews, and therein lies the rub. Your assertion also ignores all the verses which demand that "all" or "the world" cannot be interpreted to mean every person. Therefore, we can add to your list: God Himself.

 

[OzSpen]

Ozpen:
No, Jesus death is not effective to those who would not accept it. Therefore, it still makes Jesus death particular and not general. Imagine, those people living in hell at this very moment are their with their sins paid for just like those living in heaven at this particular moment. Whether in heaven or hell, all their sins were paid for according to your view. If rejection of Christ is a sin, that sin would be covered under Jesus death if all sin is already paid for.

So you believe in limited atonement? Is that true?

You seem to be confusing 2 issues: The possibility of salvation through unlimited atonement for everyone, but that salvation only becomes actual for those human beings who accept it through repentance and faith.

If you are here promoting limited atonement, then you are a Calvinist who does not support John Calvin's view on the atonement. You are promoting a view of Calvinism that is post-Calvin.

Did John Calvin (AD 1509-1564) support limited atonement? In the early days of his writing when he was aged 26, he completed the first edition of The Institutes of the Christian Religion. In the Institutes, he wrote:

I say with Augustine, that the Lord has created those who, as he certainly foreknew, were to go to destruction, and he did so because he so willed. Why he willed it is not ours to ask, as we cannot comprehend, nor can it become us even to raise a controversy as to the justice of the divine will. Whenever we speak of it, we are speaking of the supreme standard of justice (Institutes 3.23.5).

Here Calvin affirmed that God willed the destruction of unbelievers. Calvin continues:

Their perdition depends on the predestination of God, the cause and matter of it is in themselves. The first man fell because the Lord deemed it meet that he should: why he deemed it meet, we know not. It is certain, however, that it was just, because he saw that his own glory would thereby be displayed (Institutes 3.23.8).

While this description is tied up with Calvin’s view of double predestination, it is linked with the doctrine of limited atonement in that it would be impossible for God to predestine unbelievers to eternal damnation and yet provide unlimited atonement that was available to them, unto the possibility of salvation. That is the logical connection, as I understand it.

Roger Nicole has written an article on “John Calvin’s view of the extent of the atonement”. This indicates that Calvin did not believe in limited atonement, but that it was a doctrine originated by Calvinists following Calvin. But at the end of the article he stated, ‘Our conclusion, on balance, is that definite [limited] atonement fits better than universal grace into the total pattern of Calvin’s teaching’.

Calvin’s first edition of The Institutes was in Latin in 1536 and this was published in a French edition in 1560.

John Calvin did progress in his thinking when he wrote his commentaries on the Bible later in life. His first commentary was on the Book of Romans in 1540 and his commentaries after 1557 were taken from stenographer’s notes taken from lectures to his students.

Calvin wrote in his commentary on John 3:16,

Faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish….
That whosoever believeth on him may not perish. It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.

Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all. For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith (bold emphasis added).
​

Thus, John Calvin himself is very clear here. He believed in unlimited atonement because a limited atonement would not make sense in light of his statement about John 3:16 that ‘he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers’.

If unbelievers were destined for eternal destruction by the predestination of God, they would have an excuse, ‘God predestined it that way, so I have no alternative but to go to eternal condemnation’. Calvin’s language is unequivocal in his John 3:16 commentary, that the ‘whosoever’ meant ‘all indiscriminately’ and that no unbeliever would have an excuse before God.

So, when push comes to shove, John Calvin did not believe in limited atonement. It is an invention of Calvinists in the post-Calvin era.

Oz

 

[Petruchio]

Thus, John Calvin himself is very clear here. He believed in unlimited atonement because a limited atonement would not make sense in light of his statement about John 3:16 that ‘he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers’.



If unbelievers were destined for eternal destruction by the predestination of God, they would have an excuse, ‘God destined it that way, so I have no alternative but to go to eternal condemnation’. Calvin’s language is unequivocal in his John 3:16 commentary, that the ‘whosoever’ meant ‘all indiscriminately’ and that no unbeliever would have an excuse before God.

So, when push comes to shove, John Calvin did not believe in limited atonement. It is an invention of Calvinists in the post-Calvin era.

Oz

A sloppy argument I think, though I know that there are people who make them. Arminians are far too obsessed about attacking persons instead of dealing with arguments. Calvin's own views are not even his own, but come from Luther, and Luther from Augustine, and Augustine from the scripture. Calvin held a distinction between the overt will of God, and the secret counsel of God which saves some, but not all. For example, from his commentaries:

"The word of God, indeed, in itself and by its own nature, brings salvation, and invites all men indiscriminately to the hope of eternal life; but as all are not inwardly drawn, and as God does not pierce the ears of all—in short, as they are not renewed to repentance or bent to obedience, those who reject the word of God render it, by their unbelief, deadly and destructive.

While God foresees that this will be the result, he purposely sends his prophets to them, that he may involve the reprobate in severer condemnation, as is more fully explained by Isaiah in Isaiah 6:10. This, I acknowledge, is very far from being agreeable to the reason of the flesh, as we see that unholy despisers of God seize on it as a plausible excuse for barking, that God, like some cruel tyrant, takes pleasure in inflicting more severe punishment on men whom, without any expectation of advantage, he knowingly and willingly hardens more and more." (John Calvin, Commentary on Matthew 23:34.)

Again, from the previous chapter:

"Again, when the sophists seize on this passage, to prove free will, and to set aside the secret predestination of God, the answer is easy. “God wills to gather all men,” say they; “and therefore all are at liberty to come, and their will does not depend on the election of God.” I reply: The will of God, which is here mentioned, must be judged from the result. For since by his word he calls all men indiscriminately to salvation, and since the end of preaching is, that all should betake themselves to his guardianship and protection, it may justly be said that he wills to gather all to himself. It is not, therefore, the secret purpose of God, but his will which is manifested by the nature of the word, that is here described; for, undoubtedly, whomsoever he efficaciously wills to gather he inwardly draws by his Spirit, and does not merely invite by the outward voice of man.

If it be objected, that it is absurd to suppose the existence of two wills in God, I reply, we fully believe that his will is simple and one; but as our minds do not fathom the deep abyss of secret election, in accommodation to the capacity of our weakness, the will of God is exhibited to us in two ways. And I am astonished at the obstinacy of some people, who, when in many passages of Scripture they meet with that figure of speech" (Ibid., Commentary on Matthew 23:37).

In a debate with a universalist:

"“I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ which was not crucified for them, and how they can drink the blood which was not shed to expiate their sins.” (Calvin, Treatise on the Lord’s Supper)

Thus Calvin, and we Reformed say, that the Gospel is offered universally to all, which is to the condemnation of those who willingly disbelieve; but faith itself is not given universally to all, but only to those, through no merit of their own, God has decided to reveal Himself. As Christ Himself says when he explains to the unbelievers why it is that they do not believe:

"But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
(Joh 6:64-65)

 

[jamantc]

Read the complete writings of Calvin and you will see he did indeed believe in limited atonement. Read all his writings in exhaustive and completeness and you will prove your own self wrong my friend. Calvin himself in later writings stated that the whosoever will was nothing more than an effectual call to bring those whom God had chosen to repentance and that the reprobate could not be saved. I promote nothing to be honest if you must know the truth. I had no clue whom Calvin was at age 10. I was raised in an Arminian church. At age 10 I did not believe in the ways as others in my church. At the age of 10 I believed in limited atonement according to scripture and the way scripture presents it. Do I believe you're saved? I surely do! Does it matter to me that you don't believe as I do? Surely not! I believe the way I believe because it's what I have read in scripture since the age of 10 and growing up in a full Arminian family. Christ's death may be sufficient for all, but it only effective for those who believe. Who are the elect according to scripture? Those who believe. But do answer my question. Did Jesus die for everyone who has ever lived? If so, then did those who died in their sins prior to His redemptive death receive a second chance at salvation? If so, will you show me in scripture where salvation is offered after death, please? No matter how you look at it, Jesus death was limited either by God's choosing or by God seeing who would choose. Jesus did not die for either those whom God left to their sins or to those whom He saw would not accept Him! So, whether Arminian are Calvinist, one either agrees it was limited or you are a universalist who believes all will be saved. Scripture is clear that those who do not receive Christ will go to hell. What of those of have never heard? Scripture is clear, they have no excuse. Scripture says that none can believe unless they hear, yet they are without excuse for not believing even if they don't hear. So, if they have no excuse and they don't hear and they don't accept Christ, they go to hell. Why if they can't be saved if they don't hear but yet they are without excuse they go to hell? Because they were either not chosen by God for salvation or they were those whom God saw would not believe and therefore the blood of Christ has passed them by. Scripture is so easy to understand that a child can do it

 

[OzSpen]

I find the concept of a "moderate Calvinist" to be utterly absurd. It has never been a term used in history so far as I am aware. It is like saying that a moderate Calvinist is that which is actually an Arminian or Pelagian. In other words, a moderate Calvinist is that which is not Calvinist at all.

The Puritan Board disagrees with you. Someone there asked: Where are you on the Calvinism chart? It gave these options, one being 'moderate Calvinism':

This is an OPEN POLL. Your selection is not secret.

1. Hyper-Calvinism: Beliefs: God is the author of sin and man has no responsibility before God. The Gospel should only preached to the elect. i.e. duty faith. and anti-missionary Belief in the five points is a prerequisite for true salvation, also known as Neo-Gnostic Calvinism. Proponents: Joseph Hussey John Skepp and some English primitive Baptists.
   
   
2. Ultra High Calvinism: Beliefs: That the elect are in some sense eternally justified. A denial of: The Well– Meant Offer; Common Grace; and God having any love for the non-elect. Proponents: John Gill, some ministers in the Protestant Reformed Church of America
   
   
3. High Calvinism: Beliefs: That God in no sense desires to save the reprobate, Most deny the Well-Meant Offer. Supralapsarian viewing God’s decrees. All hold to limited atonement. Most believe in particular grace and see the atonement as sufficient only for the elect. Proponents: Theodore Beza, Gordon Clark, Arthur Pink
   
   
4. Moderate Calvinism: Beliefs: That God does in some sense desires to save the reprobate, Infralapsarian in viewing God’s decrees. Affirms Common Grace. Proponents: John Calvin (some argue that he was a High-Calvinist), John Murray, RL Dabney
   
   
5. Low Calvinism: Beliefs: That Christ died for all in a legal sense, so one can speak of Christ dying for the non-elect. That God has two distinct wills. Affirms the Well-Meant Offer and Common Grace, Proponents: Amyraldrians , RT Kendal
   
   
6. Lutheranism: Beliefs: That Calvinist over emphasize God Sovereignty over man’s responsibility. That Christ died for all in legal sense, that some are predestined on to life but none are predestined onto death. That the sacraments are means of grace regardless of one’s faith. Proponents: Martin Luther, Philipp Melanchthon, Rod Rosenbladt
   
   
7. American Baptist: Beliefs: That God has given man libertarian freedom, that God’s knowledge of future is based on His foreknowledge. That Christ died for all and desires all to be saved. Once a persons believes the gospel, he is eternally secure. Rejects Calvinism, some would even call it heretical. Proponents: Jerry Falwell, Adrian Rogers
   
   
8. Arminianism Beliefs: That God has given man libertarian freedom, that God’s knowledge of future is solely based on His foreknowledge. That Christ died for all and desires all to be saved. A person can fall from the state of grace i.e. lose ones salvation, since it is our free will that chooses Christ at conversion. Proponents: Jacob Arminius, John Wesley some Methodists
   
   http://www.exegiaaudio.org/exegiacalvinsimweb.mht

P.S. Almost forgot: copyright Rev Jonathan James Goundry. Thanks VanVos.

Note that it placed John Gill in Ultra High Calvinism.

On an 'essentially Reformed theology' website, there is an article, 'A Defense of Moderate Calvinism'. Part of this article states:

Let us try this question: “for whose sins was Christ punished?”
​

The standard TULIP answer is: “for the sins of the elect alone.” ​

The classic-moderate Calvinist answer is: “for the sins of all men, all mankind.” ​

Once we have that question on the table, we can being to identify the proper entailments. In terms of the TULIP position, the very nature of the satisfaction is limited, as well as its intent. So extent and intent are coterminous. ​

In classic-moderate Calvinism, the extent is unlimited and universal, but the intent (to effectually apply) is limited....

The classic-moderate Calvinist says that the satisfaction is actually sufficient for all exactly because Christ was punished for all human sin, the sins of all. He sustained a perfect satisfaction for the sins of all mankind. Thus extent is universal. However, contrary to Arminianism, intent is limited. Dort itself does not speak to the extent question, it is neutral. It only speaks to the intent question. The modern TULIP, however, speaks to extent as well as intent: as did Owen and others of that school within the broader Reformed movements.

The standard TULIP answer to the question above is to reply: If it were the case that Christ was punished for the sins of all men, then all men must be saved, because God cannot demand a second punishment for sin from the person for whom Christ has already suffered. This argument dates back to Perkins (at least), but was made popular by Owen; the double payment argument which under-girds his famous trilemma: ‘Christ either suffered for all the sins of some men, all the sins of all men, or all the sins of some men…’ etc. The double payment argument, however, has been refuted by men like Polhil down to C Hodge and Dabney and Shedd.

Historically, in terms of those first and second generation Reformers which we can access in extant translations, in all of them, with one or two possible exception, affirmed an unlimited satisfaction for all human sin. Names such as Musculus, Luther, Bullinger, Zwingli, Gualther, Cranmer, Ridley, even Calvin. I know this will touch some buttons for you, but it is actually not that hard to document: http://calvinandcalvinism.com/?page_id=7147 ​

Another has written of 'Moderate Calvinism in England'.

In 'Evangelical Systems Compared', there is discussion of some beliefs of moderate Calvinism.

You may consider the concept of 'moderate Calvinism' to be 'absurd'. Others do not, as these examples demonstrate.

Oz
​

 

[OzSpen]

Read the complete writings of Calvin and you will see he did indeed believe in limited atonement. Read all his writings in exhaustive and completeness and you will prove your own self wrong my friend

I have provided evidence from his writings that Calvin did not believe in limited atonement.

Or, are you saying that if I read the complete writings of Calvin, I would find that Calvin contradicted himself on limited atonement?

 

[jamantc]

All I can say is that I know what I've read in scripture since age 10. You nor any other semi pelagian won't change my view and I not yours, so it is pointless for me to continue to disagree with one who is biased in his readings and understandings. Yes, I am biased in my view as well, but I believed in limited atonement since age 10 in a full Arminian church who taught unlimited atonement and a family that continues to preach the same thing. Again, I find it interesting that those in hell are there with all their sins paid for. Unbelief and rejection is a sin, which is covered under Christ blood if He died for the all sins of every person, which means they had to have died in blasphemy not to be forgiven and end up in hell. I find it odd that scripture states we die once then the judgment, yet you tell me that Christ died for the sins of everyone who every lived, including those who died in their sins in the Old Testament which tells me they were offered a second offer of salvation while in hell, which the bible doesn't teach. Have a great church service this A.M. and God bless you my brother!

 

[OzSpen]

Somehow I doubt it.

You rarely respond to my posts. As to weather or not I "like" when you do - well that is a bit of an over dramatization as far as I'm concerned. Particularly when I have given you positive words from time to time. I haven't disagreed with everything you say.

Clearly though - you have a habit of misrepresenting Calvinism and Arminianism which I simply like to point out.

In regards to Geisler he is an Arminian as White pointed out in his book. There is no such thing as a "moderate Calvinist" as Geisler defines it - which is a joke among the Reformed.

. Always playing the victim. It gets old.



Yea - that's too bad but I think they will always be in the minority and I am grateful for that.

The comment of mine to which you referred by this comment was:

Dr Olson is spot on. He hit the button of the myths that Calvinists and others perpetrate about Calvinism.

I have changed the original statement I gave as Calvinism should have been Arminianism. Therefore the correct statement from me should have been:

Dr Olson is spot on. He hit the button of the myths that Calvinists and others perpetrate about Arminianism.

Sorry for the typing mistake by me.

Dr Olson, in Arminian Theology: Myths & Realities is exposing some of the myths that Calvinists and others perpetrate by their incorrect understanding of Arminianism.

Oz

 

[Petruchio]

The Puritan Board disagrees with you.

I trump them with a Dr. Nicole:

A Puritan's Mind » John Calvin’s view of Limited Atonement – by Dr. Roger Nicole

I also trump them with Calvin himself, which you ignored entirely, ignoring what I say and then moving on to one strawman or red herring to another.

You ignored:
1) The same evidence you used to prove your argument was repeated in the quotes I provided.
2) Immediately following them was an assertion of limited atonement, with no contradiction.

This is NOT debate. This is merely you fighting the inevitable.

On an 'essentially Reformed theology' website, there is an article, 'A Defense of Moderate Calvinism'. Part of this article states:

Another has written of 'Moderate Calvinism in England'.​

Again, random blogs or posters on forums cannot erase the Westminster standards and centuries of Reformed theology. If you do not like it, take it up with the Synod of Dort and all the historical confessions.

As for Gill, it doesn't matter if random people agree with you. If you cannot prove it yourself, who cares what other bloggers say? And why does it even matter, when I was using Gill to bring us the Jewish perspective? If Gill is a hyper-Calvinist, does that save you? Yet, you make these silly arguments anyway, even though they make no difference to what you were originally trying to prove. Such is the sad state of Arminian debate methods.​

 

[OzSpen]

All I can say is that I know what I've read in scripture since age 10. You nor any other semi pelagian won't change my view and I not yours

Would you please quit mislabelling my view. I am a Reformed Arminian in my theological thinking and NOT a Semi-Pelagian. That's your imposition on my view and it is false.

Bye