What do you think?

[pawnraider]

I would be interested in how a Calvinist would respond to this. Also, to what's written below the video.

Pastor Chuck Smith Exposes Calvinism - YouTube

Thanks.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I would be interested in how a Calvinist would respond to this. Also, to what's written below the video.

Thanks.

I happen to be a Calvinist who doesn't believe in limited atonement. Therefore I have no problem with their use of those verses teaching against it. All other points of Calvinism I agree with.

I suppose many Calvinists would tend to argue with me on that. But I think I can show easily from his own words that Calvin himself didn't believe in limited atonement. This particular thread may not be the place for that and it is not my intent to zero in on that.

The speakers in the video carrying on about the supposed teaching of Calvinists that men don't have a will seemed to me to show that they either didn't understand Calvinist teaching on that or they were simply throwing up a straw man. If it was the latter - I consider that to be a form of lying and therefore sin.

Calvinists affirm that all men - both natural and regenerate have a will. The problem for fallen man is what all men tend to do with their will before receiving a new nature by God and His grace.

Their assertion that Calvinist don't refer to the words of Jesus in formulating their theology is simply not true. Nothing could be farther from the truth and I believe they know it.

One can't help but notice the strong anti Calvinist statements superimposed on the screen. They insinuate that Calvinists teach another gospel and are lost.

Absolute nonsense! I'd get my information on what Calvinists believe from a Calvinist himself instead of a mean spirited bunch like this.

 

[hedrick]

I may not be the best person to respond to this, as I’m PCUSA. Thus my view on election isn’t the same as conservative Reformed.

But this video is not one of the better Arminian efforts.

The specific answer he gives on Rom 8:28 seems weird. He says that being formed in the image of Christ isn’t being saved. Huh? 28-30 includes the whole progression from being called, to being justified, to being glorified in the end. It’s hard to claim that this isn’t salvation.

I do agree that limited atonement is the hardest to defend, and that Calvin didn’t teach it. But their use of 2 Peter in that context also seems weird. 1 Tim 2:4 is probably better.

Their statement that people don't have free wills doesn't mean that we don't have a will. That's silly. It means that the will is "bound." That is, although we certainly have a will, and it controls what we do, without God doing something to enable it, we're unable to choose anything saving.

There are better Arminians than this. And I agree that the overlays are offensive. Calvinism is not fatalism, and it’s not Islam. Christians don't treat other Christians this way.

 

[Marvin Knox]

....................... I’m PCUSA. Thus my view on election isn’t the same as conservative Reformed. ..........

I sure don't want to hijack this thread or anything. But if you can answer briefly I'd like to know in what way PCUSA differs from conservative Reformed with regards to election. If it's too long an answer maybe drop me a message or just forget it.

I left PCUSA several years ago for "liberal" reasons (theirs not mine). At the time they were still Westminster advocates (at least on paper and as per oaths of office). It speaks to sovereign election and seems pretty conservative to me.

 

[hedrick]

I sure don't want to hijack this thread or anything. But if you can answer briefly I'd like to know in what way PCUSA differs from conservative Reformed with regards to election. If it's too long an answer maybe drop me a message or just forget it.

I left PCUSA several years ago for "liberal" reasons (theirs not mine). At the time they were still Westminster advocates (at least on paper and as per oaths of office). It speaks to sovereign election and seems pretty conservative to me.

First, realize that the PCUSA has a range of beliefs. However the leadership, reflected in official statements and confessional documents, would probably not have the same view of what it means to be confessional as more conservative Presbyterians. We would say that what makes a Church confessional is that it does theology as a community. We don’t have everybody going out and doing their own interpretation, though individuals can certainly challenge the current community interpretation. Confessions reflect the community’s current theology. They tell others what we believe, and also serve as a basis for teaching within the Church.

I say this because you need to understand that most of us would see Westminster as a confession that reflected where our community was at an earlier time.

I believe today, we see election as having several implications:

* God calls a people. In the OT it was Israel. Today Christians are included, because we have been grafted into Israel.
* God calls us for service. We are called to be his agents in the world, reconciling the whole world to him. We are also called for specific types of service.

We acknowledge that we are part of God’s people only because he called us. It’s not something we could do on our own. But what you will not see in current statements is anything saying that God decided to reject certain people or intentionally limited the scope of his call. We recognize that we are his only because he has called us, but the people I know would prefer not to speak about what is going on with others.

The most detailed official document I know on current theology is the Declaration of Faith, A Declaration of Faith - Introduction. This has not been made part of the Book of Confessions, though it was endorsed by the General Assembly. But the recent documents in the Book of Confessions tend to cover specific issues. So the Declaration is the best overall statement. Here’s everything in the book of Confessions: Presbyterian Creedal Standards.

Note also that in 1903, the predecessor denomination added declaratory statements to the Westminster Confession. They have the effect of changing what it says about election. The Presbyterian Church in the United States of America.. It’s not clear to me whether this disclaims double predestination, though I think it probably does. It certainly disclaims limited atonement. Most of the more conservative Presbyterian groups seem not to include the declaratory statements, though the ECO has retained the entire PCUSA book of confessions.

Recall that oaths of office refer to that modified Westminster, unless you’re a lot older than I suspect you are. Furthermore, since 1983 it has referred to the entire Book of Confessions, and the wording has been something like “guided by,” not strict subscription. I’m not sure how strict the standards were before that, but I believe the looser concept of confessions had been around for some time before 1983. This has, in fact, been a matter of controversy since the early 20th Century.

Again, conservative Presbyterian churches normally require reasonably strict subscription to Westminster. Some issues are allowed, but I doubt any Presbytery in one of the conservative churches would allow differences on the five points.

 

[JM]

Edited

 

[hedrick]

I was wrong about dates. The current book of confessions dates to 1983 because that’s when the current Church was created, as a merger of the Northern and Southern churches. But the book of confessions actually goes back to 1967. Here is a contemporary article on it: The Doctrine of Scripture in "The Confession of 1967" | Standard Bearer.

That article is from someone who disapproves of the change. But I think they are right that the creation of the book of confessions represents a change in thinking on what confessions mean. Previously, Westminster was thought of by many as a legal document defining who could be church officers, though that view had been debated since at least the early 20th Cent, and arguably wasn't actually in effect in 1967. But as of the adoption of the book of confessions in 1967, the official position fairly clearly sees confessions as a public profession of the faith of the community at the time it was created. Officers are expected to use the confessions as guidance.

Here’s an article from the PCUSA web site describing the significance of confessions: What do Presbyterians believe about confessions? — Presbyterians Today Magazine — Mission and Ministry — Presbyterian Mission Agency. It’s not an officially adopted statement, but I think it represents current thinking.

 

[Marvin Knox]

We would say that what makes a Church confessional is that it does theology as a community. ..................

........Confessions reflect the community’s current theology.................

..........I say this because you need to understand that most of us would see Westminster as a confession that reflected where our community was at an earlier time.......................................

...............I doubt any Presbytery in one of the conservative churches would allow differences on the five points.

Thank you Hedrick for your response. If we spent much more time on this it would detract from the original intent of the thread. So I'll just leave this side bar to this comment and not get into it any further if that's OK.

It is all coming back to me now. I'm so glad I made the move away from the double speak of the liberal influences in the PCUSA.

There's an old saying, "Being a liberal means never having to say you're sorry." They just keep progressing from one truth to the next truth. Then when they are challenged on having drifted away from truth they simply hold up the current truth as the only valid truth for today.

There is no real standard to which appeal can be made. Even with regard to God's eternal Word there seem to be no real absolutes. Interpretations keep changing with the current times.

Again - I'm so glad that the Holy Spirit gave me the grace to understanding that there could be no victory for truth in an ever changing environment like the PCUSA.

Also - Westminster doesn't address the doctrine of limited atonement as usually taught by full 5-pointers that I can see.

 

[heymikey80]

I would be interested in how a Calvinist would respond to this. Also, to what's written below the video.
Thanks.

Ok, but keep in mind, Chuck Smith ousted Calvinist churches from his denomination (iow, Christ's church). He is no unbiased player in this.

2Peter 2 describes "denying the one who bought them" referring to false teachers.

Christ Jesus inherits the whole world. He deserves to judge the whole world. False teachers are part of the whole world. Whats the problem? Yes, Jesus bought them. But Jesus doesn't atone them.

Arminians believe in a limited Atonement every bit as much as Calvinists. You'd need to be a universalist to conclude that Jesus atoned for everyone. Look up the word "atonement", it's not an offer, it's the whole nine yards of salvation. If you're atoned, you are saved.

On to "God ... wants all men to be saved". I'm noncommittal about this. If God wants all men saved, I don't see why He doesn't. Yet He says He doesn't save everyone. There are two answers to how this verse is plausibly understood 7n context. But it is critical to see, this is not God's primary focus. He is not saving everyone. It seems obvious He has some motive to save. But sin has intervened. And He shall not save everyone. He has said so. To send the camel in on this nose is rougly comparable to the Mormon addition of baptism for the dead. This verse does not establish free will. It only establishes things on which all agree. Yes, I think God has some desire to save anyone. It is not enough to have good feelings. God has far, far more grace on some. Rom 5:20-21. We explain that as God's freedom to choose. Arminians introduce human will. I already know my will is not stable enough for that. God's is.

Finally, theres 2 Peter 3:9, where Chuck misuses Peter's own statement. Peter is talking about and to those who shall be saved. The context is unmistakable. I'd just ask, who is "all" referring to? It's "all of you", not all the people. And who is Peter writing to? You. Christians.

 

[Skala]

This video should be re-titled "Chuck Smith Exposes His Own Mishandling of God's Word" maybe with a subtitle: "And why Chuck Smith should not be calling himself a "pastor""

As Hedrick said, Romans 8:28-30 is absolutely about salvation. What in the world does he think "being made into Christ's image" is, if not salvation? It seems like sometimes, these people don't think a passage is about salvation unless the actual word "salvation" appears. But that is ridiculous as the word "salvation" in our modern usage is vague and refers to many different things. Sometimes, justification (being seen as just and innocent in God's eyes) is what we mean by "salvation". Other times it means being saved from God's wrath. Other times it means being adopted into God's family. The word "salvation" is a "catch all" word that modern English speakers use to refer to all of these things. Being made into Christ's image is definitely salvation and can be referred to as "salvation". The New Testament authors used the word "salvation" to refer to many different things.

As for 2 Peter, I could say much on it. For starters, the anti-Calvinist assumes things about the text and reads extra information into the text that isn't there. For starters, the verse isn't even about Christ and his death on the cross. They assume that it is because of the way the verse reads. No where is Christ mentioned, and no where is his death on the cross mentioned. For further study, I highly recommend these article on the verse:

Alpha and Omega Ministries, The Christian Apologetics Ministry of James R. White
A Puritan's Mind » Exegesis of 2 Peter 2:1 – Dr. Matthew McMahon
Reformation Theology: Does 2 Peter 2:1 Deny Particular Redemption?

A few tidbits from the 3rd article:

The word for "Lord" in this verse is despotes, not kurious. Despotes is the greek word the NT authors used when referring to God in the sovereign sense, and kurious is the word they used for referring to him in the saving sense. Thus, this verse is not soteriological in nature.
The anti-Calvinists assume that by "Lord" the NT author is referring to Jesus. But is that true? Can it be proven? By using the word "Despotes" the NT author could easily be referring to God as the Sovereign, as the word is used to emphasize God's sovereignty. Since they assume "Lord" means Jesus, they then automatically assume that "bought" refers to Christ's work on the cross. So one assumption leads to another assumption. Both are wrong, imo. If you read old commentaries they will tell you that Peter is drawing upon an Old Testament passage in which God "bought" (ie, rescued) Israel out of Egypt. Nevertheless, despite God's taking them as his people, there remained false teachers among the ranks of the people. Peter is telling his readers that yet again, there will still be people among the flock that will spread false teachings, despite being part of the visible church, just as there were in those old days. This has nothing to do with Christ's death on the cross. This has nothing to do with atonement for sin.

I also noticed that (and this happens ALL the time with anti-Calvinists), they misquoted Matthew 23:37. In the video they said "How often I would have gathered YOU under my wings, but you were not willing". But that is a misquotation of the verse. The verse actually reads "How often I would have gathered YOUR CHILDREN under my wings.. but you were not willing". Jesus is speaking directly to the leaders of Jerusalem, accusing them of not being willing to let their children come to Jesus. He is not saying that he wanted to gather THEM but they wouldn't let him. Instead he's holding them accountable for not being willing to lead people to Jesus.

All in all this video by Chuck Smith is one of the worst arguments against Calvinism I have ever heard. They showed their own lack of Biblical knowledge by misquoting the Bible, making assumptions about verses, and their own lack of understanding about what "salvation" is.

 

[Skala]

Pawnraider, please come back and provide feedback.

 

[Skala]

I happen to be a Calvinist who doesn't believe in limited atonement.

Brother, Limited Atonement (effectual atonement) is the most Biblical and important doctrine one could adhere to. You would be quickly persuaded if you spent some time studying it!

Have you checked out the book "The Death of Death.." by John Owen?

Also, try these sermons...

On this page, do a search for "Limited Atonement". If not just scroll down and find the section on "Doctrines of Grace"
Spirit Empowered Preaching

Here's another series of sermons, called "Ten reasons why the Bible teaches Definite Atonement" (another name for Limited atonement)

Dr. Steven J. Lawson Sermons | SermonAudio.com

 

[Marvin Knox]

Brother, Limited Atonement (effectual atonement) is the most Biblical and important doctrine one could adhere to. You would be quickly persuaded if you spent some time studying it!

Have you checked out the book "The Death of Death.." by John Owen?

Also, try these sermons...

On this page, do a search for "Limited Atonement". If not just scroll down and find the section on "Doctrines of Grace"
Spirit Empowered Preaching

Here's another series of sermons, called "Ten reasons why the Bible teaches Definite Atonement" (another name for Limited atonement)

Dr. Steven J. Lawson Sermons | SermonAudio.com

Thank you, brother, for the references. I will add them to the information I have on hand now. Thanks particularly for the link to "Spirit Empowered Preaching". I'm thinking I will use it often.

I have taken classes from Mr. Lawson and in fact have attended lectures by him in person. I have several of his books and a number of his sermons and lectures on my MP3.

I have more tapes and albums by R.C. Sproul (with whom Lawson is largely associated) than probably any other teacher.
I'm a big fan of the late James Kennedy. I've received much from John McArthur over the years. I like R.C. Glenn and have several of his series including on the "doctrines of grace" and Reformed doctrine. I've enjoyed much of what Piper has to say and I use Wayne Grudem's systematic theology frequently

My main theology books over the years have been the likes of Louis Berkof.

Between the Sermon Audio and Monergism resources I have likely a couple of hundred or more lectures and sermons. I listen to perhaps an average of 2 lectures a week on tape as well as other studies. I have taken several Reform oriented classes on line.

Most of my education in the scriptures is from a Reformed perspective since I believe it to be the best perspective concerning systematic theology which is my passion it seems. I identify myself as "Reformed" before any other title I might add to that word.

I have several books on the 5 points. I am a fan of Edwards. I do not however have the John Owen book and I will pick it up soon and add it to my library.

More could be said I suppose.

This all probably sounds terrible I - know. It isn't meant as a big negative come back on you. I hope you aren't taking it as such.

All of this is not to blow my own horn. I'm sure most of you have similar if not many more and official credentials. The only reason for laying these things out in this way is to make it clear that I have indeed considered the matter very closely over the years. I just happen to come down with believing only 4 of the points of so called Calvinism. I believe that John Calvin would also.

You might want to look at my series of posts under "Unlimited Atonement is the teaching of Scripture" here in the "Ask a Calvinist" section. Posts 46-49 would likely give you my perspective on limited atonement.

I assure you I don't mean this carrying on as criticism of you and your point of view. I appreciate the input and welcomed it. It was given and received in the best Christian brotherly tradition. Any and all input from you or anyone else will be similarly appreciated.

P.S. Nice to talk to you on something. I've enjoyed and learned a lot from many of your posts here in the forum.

 

[Skala]

Thank you, brother, for the references. I will add them to the information I have on hand now. Thanks particularly for the link to "Spirit Empowered Preaching". I'm thinking I will use it often.

I have taken classes from Mr. Lawson and in fact have attended lectures by him in person. I have several of his books and a number of his sermons and lectures on my MP3.

I have more tapes and albums by R.C. Sproul (with whom Lawson is largely associated) than probably any other teacher.
I'm a big fan of the late James Kennedy. I've received much from John McArthur over the years. I like R.C. Glenn and have several of his series including on the "doctrines of grace" and Reformed doctrine. I've enjoyed much of what Piper has to say and I use Wayne Grudem's systematic theology frequently

My main theology books over the years have been the likes of Louis Berkof.

Between the Sermon Audio and Monergism resources I have likely a couple of hundred or more lectures and sermons. I listen to perhaps an average of 2 lectures a week on tape as well as other studies. I have taken several Reform oriented classes on line.

Most of my education in the scriptures is from a Reformed perspective since I believe it to be the best perspective concerning systematic theology which is my passion it seems. I identify myself as "Reformed" before any other title I might add to that word.

I have several books on the 5 points. I am a fan of Edwards. I do not however have the John Owen book and I will pick it up soon and add it to my library.

More could be said I suppose.

This all probably sounds terrible I - know. It isn't meant as a big negative come back on you. I hope you aren't taking it as such.

All of this is not to blow my own horn. I'm sure most of you have similar if not many more and official credentials. The only reason for laying these things out in this way is to make it clear that I have indeed considered the matter very closely over the years. I just happen to come down with believing only 4 of the points of so called Calvinism. I believe that John Calvin would also.

You might want to look at my series of posts under "Unlimited Atonement is the teaching of Scripture" here in the "Ask a Calvinist" section. Posts 46-49 would likely give you my perspective on limited atonement.

I assure you I don't mean this carrying on as criticism of you and your point of view. I appreciate the input and welcomed it. It was given and received in the best Christian brotherly tradition. Any and all input from you or anyone else will be similarly appreciated.

P.S. Nice to talk to you on something. I've enjoyed and learned a lot from many of your posts here in the forum.

I guess all that's left is a few simple questions:

Did Christ's death actually accomplish anything for the elect?

If so, what was it?

 

[Marvin Knox]

I guess all that's left is a few simple questions:

Did Christ's death actually accomplish anything for the elect?

If so, what was it?

His death made an atonement for me just as for the entire world. His death made it possible that I as one of the elect could be justified through faith.

I enjoyed many years as an elect sinner before I believed and was saved. I was of course an enemy of God even as the non-elect for all those years.

Christ died for my sins 2000 years ago. Imagine being one of His elect, being as lost as the devil, and not knowing either one.

I'm sure glad someone preached the gospel to me so I could be saved.

I didn't know, of course, that I was one of the elect until after I believed and studied it with the aid of His Holy Spirit. Nor did I know that I had been an enemy of God during all of those years.

I didn't know what true enjoyment was until God opened my eyes by His grace to believe on Christ.

Because of my depravity, without His grace I never could have believed. He unconditionally predestined my adoption as His son. His irresistible grace drew me with a special calling to my justified position. His grace keeps me forever.

I suppose we all have a similar story to tell.

I'm a 4-point Calvinist just as John Calvin was and (if it's not sinful to put it this way) I'm proud of it.

 

[Skala]

His death made an atonement for me just as for the entire world. His death made it possible that I as one of the elect could be justified through faith.

Where does the Bible make this argument? Where does it describe Christ's atonement is something that merely "makes salvation a possibility"?

Looking forward to your answer

(PS I am honestly going somewhere with these questions!

 

[Marvin Knox]

Where does the Bible make this argument? Where does it describe Christ's atonement is something that merely "makes salvation a possibility"?

Looking forward to your answer

(PS I am honestly going somewhere with these questions!

I said, "His death made an atonement for me just as for the entire world. His death made it possible that I as one of the elect could be justified through faith."

Before we continue please note that never did I say that Christ's atonement "merely makes salvation a possibility". I said that His death made an atonement for the entire world. I also said that His death made it possible for me as one of His elect to be justified through faith. Both are true as I see it.

As we continue you'll have to give me your definition of the word atonement.

In the Authorized translation it is only used once where it is translated reconciliation (Romans 5:11). Bible dictionaries variously define it to cover, to wipe out, to cleanse, to appease, and to purge.

The preferred sense of the word depends on the context to some extent. It can mean covering or appeasing which is somewhat different than reconciliation. But they are related.

We see the word propitiation in the O.T. and many would say that that concept is the same as reconciliation. Lots of scholarly folks use the term "at-one-ment" to explain the meaning. That would be a state of being reconciled or at one with Christ.

That probably explains my stance on the word to some extent. Being at one with Christ could mean being crucified with Him as my old man was. Or it can mean being glorified with Him and seated with Him in the Heavenlies like my new man. More likely being at one with Him means being in both positions.

I'd like it best if you could cut to the chase as it were. I've got some really involved discussion going on elsewhere with some Arminians who could definitely use help from both of us. I have trouble talking in one liners and I can't seem to keep posts from getting long. It may take me a while to get back to you here. I told myself a while back that I wasn't going to talk to those bozos over there again. But I got involved again anyway because I felt that God wanted me to.

It might even be a good thing if you just gave me real scoop on what I'm missing and just skipped all the back and forths. If it weren't for the other threads in soteriology - I'd gladly spend all of my time here.

As long as we agree that whatever was accomplished at Calvary was not finished salvation.

There is at least another step to it in justification through faith. There is at least another step of glorification in the "golden chain of salvation". And we know that in the comprehensive sense salvation also includes sanctification and other such things.

And I have considered some other things that Calvinist sometimes say like, that Christ "purchased" faith itself at Calvary etc. thereby laying out the case that it was indeed "finished" salvation .

Also please try to refrain from some of the buzz terms used when talking to Arminians - like, "spilled blood", "wasted sacrifice", "His sacrifice apparently wasn't enough - you must have to add something to it",etc

Thanks! .

Talking like that doesn't work with Arminians and it certainly won't with a Reformed "Calvinist" like me.

This will likely be my last "long" post for a while. Go ahead and give the whole lecture if you want. I'm up for it.

 

[Foghorn]

I do agree that limited atonement is the hardest to defend, and that Calvin didn’t teach it.

I say it may be the hardest to believe, scripture does a great job defending it. And yes, Calvin did believe and teach limited atonement. How can you miss such a teaching from Calvin?

 

[Marvin Knox]

I say it may be the hardest to believe, scripture does a great job defending it. And yes, Calvin did believe and teach limited atonement. How can you miss such a teaching from Calvin?

Maybe because he mixed it up with statements like these?

A FEW QUOTES BY JOHN CALVIN:

1 John 2:2--"he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world"----------------------- "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: "This is my blood of the new testament, WHICH IS SHED FOR MANY"..................... "The word 'many' DOES NOT 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."
"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"

Calvin's "LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT, April 25, 1564":
"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...."

.

 

[Foghorn]

Maybe because he mixed it up with statements like these?

A FEW QUOTES BY JOHN CALVIN:

1 John 2:2--"he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world"----------------------- "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: "This is my blood of the new testament, WHICH IS SHED FOR MANY"..................... "The word 'many' DOES NOT 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."
"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"

Calvin's "LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT, April 25, 1564":
"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...."

.

Source please? Or did you write these up?