Why Calvin is More Biblical Than Some Calvinists
By Trevin Wax on Aug 11, 2009 in Reformed Theology | 
Print This Post | Share (Twitter, Email, Facebook)
Did John Calvin believe in “Limited Atonement” – the L in the famous TULIP acronym, which teaches that Christ did not die as an atonement for the sins of the whole world, but only for the elect?
I don’t know.
There are contradictory signals in Calvin’s writings. At times, it seems very clear that he did not believe in limited atonement. At other times, there is hardly any choice but to assume that he did.
I am not going to debate Calvin’s view of limited atonement. Instead, I’d like to point out what I find most fascinating about Calvin on this subject: his willingness to speak in ways that the Bible itself speaks when it comes to these matters.
Take this Trinitarian prayer for example:
We offer up our prayers unto Thee, O most gracious God and most merciful Father, for all men in general, that as Thou art pleased to be acknowledged the Savior of the whole human race by the redemption accomplished by Jesus Christ Thy Son…
Or consider his thoughts on the pardoned thief:
Our Lord made effective for the thief his death and passion which he suffered and endured for all mankind.
Or his thoughts on Christ’s suffering:
Indeed, our Lord Jesus was offered to all the world… Our Lord Jesus suffered for all and there is neither great nor small who is not inexcusable today, for we can obtain salvation in him.
Again, my point is not to make the case that Calvin believed in universal redemption. Calvinist scholars can whip out passages that seem to indicate otherwise. I merely want to point out that Calvin had no qualms about speaking of Christ dying for the sins of the world. As a careful biblical scholar, Calvin demonstrated a willingness to use the vocabulary of Scripture.
In recent years, I have noticed a tendency in some Reformed circles for Calvinists to bristle at the very mention of Jesus dying for the sins of the world or at an evangelist’s call to choose Christ. Other Calvinists can’t stomach the song, “I Have Decided to Follow Jesus.” After all, they might say, doesn’t this type of language mislead people into thinking they can decide for Christ apart from the Holy Spirit?
I recommend that Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike follow the example of John Calvin, Charles Spurgeon and others in not refraining from using biblical language when speaking of these matters.
Yes, people are dead in their sins. But the truth is… telling people to repent and believe, or to choose Christ and live, or to follow Jesus, not the world – these types of exhortations do not shoot an arrow through God’s sovereignty. The Bible itself speaks in these ways.
Saying that Christ has died for the sins of the world is not necessarily a denial of limited atonement. It is simply the way that the Bible speaks of redemption. Interpret those verses however you want, but don’t be afraid to speak the way the Bible speaks.
Is it wrong to call people to make a decision for Christ? Not at all. The language of “decision” or “surrender” is biblical. Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike believe that the lost sinner, under the convicting power of the Holy Spirit, actually does “make a decision” at the point of conversion. We do indeed respond to the preaching of the gospel. Therefore, we should not refrain from using the language of “following Jesus” or “choosing Christ,” etc.
Read through the sermons of Charles Spurgeon and you will find these kinds of exhortations. Read through the sermons of John Calvin and you will find references to Christ’s death for the whole world. Why? Because the Bible itself contains these types of exhortations and references. Calvin, Spurgeon and others are not afraid to speak in ways the Bible speaks.
Don’t put a straitjacket on your theological vocabulary. You are free to speak as the Bible speaks.
In the end, you are not being more biblical for avoiding such terminology; you are being less biblical. And that’s why John Calvin is more biblical than some Calvinists today.
© Copyright by Trevin Wax | Print This Post | Share (Twitter, Email, Facebook)
First of all, I love the new design of the site. I use a feed reader, so I missed it until now.
Secondly, amen. I love this post. I love it because it is true and oh so needed. I remember sitting in one particular study area at SBTS for three semesters listening to young so-called Calvinists deny the very things you assert here. Nicely put, Trevin.
Steve Dumas | Aug 11, 2009 | Reply
Trevin,
I like your emphasis on the “language” of Scripture. I wonder if we would do better if we allowed the language of Scripture to form our theology rather than the other way around. On the issue of election in general an objective look at the Scriptures will yield language supporting both the sovereign choice of God and the need for man to choose. They are both there. How to reconcile the two? I have come to believe that the point at which they meet is in the realm of mystery (Deut.29:29). After all of these years I am finally OK with that:-)
Charlie | Aug 11, 2009 | Reply
Yes and amen! Thank you for this post. I have felt this way for years! When we let any theological system shape the way we see and hear Scripture,that system becomes at the least an obstacle and at worst, an idol.
Craig Ervin | Aug 11, 2009 | Reply
trevin ~ perhaps you are confusing limited atonement (particular redemption) with the universal offer of the gospel? Christ’s blood is certainly sufficient to atone for all the sins of all men for all time … but the purpose of the atonement was to forgive the sins of those chosen in Him before the foundation of the world. that ALL are called to believe in Christ for the forgiveness of sins is not to say that ALL will believe … nor have the sins of unbelievers been atoned for….
Pastor Jim Sharp | Aug 11, 2009 | Reply
Trevin, I’d tend to agree with you, but with one qualification. We must not use the *language* of Scripture without explanation if it doesn’t carry the same *meaning* to a 21st audience as it did to its original audience. The important thing isn’t the *words*; it’s the *meaning* of those words. If I’ve merely preserved the words but lost the meaning, I’ve certainly not been more biblical. Sometimes being more biblical may mean finding different words to preserve the meaning.
Phil Gons | Aug 11, 2009 | Reply
Trevin,
I partly agree with you. There is a danger of hyper-Calvinism lurking in the resurgence of Calvinism, especially amongst our younger brethren. The internet has done alot of good and alot of bad in this area. We don’t know who we are really reading on the internet, and have to weigh carefully what we read. I am currently reading a book by G. Michael Thomas on the extent of the Atonement, which basically covers the views on the atonement held by Calvin, his contemporaries and those who followed Calvin. You are correct in your assessment of Calvins writings, however, I cannot agree that telling people to repent and believe are synonymous with choose and live. You are right. Scriptural language is critical here. The right language, and the prevalent language in scripture to use is, “repent and believe”, defining what it is to repent and believe. Otherwise we return to a mere assent of the facts, the by-product of modern day evangelicalism.
Bob Schembre | Aug 11, 2009 | Reply
I agree with Phil and Bob.
As to Bob’s point, I also don’t see “repent and believe” as synonymous with “choose and live.” “Repent and believe” being the biblical language we should employ, especially, given the problems of “decisional regeneration” in the church.
Mark | Aug 11, 2009 | Reply
This only proves that Calvin was a postmillennialist. How else can we consistently understand these passages. Warfield got it!
Uriesou | Aug 11, 2009 | Reply
Trevin,
Good, thought provoking post. I agree that we should be comfortable using the same language that the Bible uses. The problem is that the language in the Bible is not received the same way it was then. In the Bible, “choose/follow Christ” might very well mean, repent and believe. But it doesnt today. We have to use biblical language, but that means using language that will be received the same way the language in the Bible was received… Right?
With decisionism being so popular today it is important to not use language that would make people fall into that category. With that in mind, in our culture it is MORE biblical to say “repent and believe” rather than “choose Jesus today.”
Matt Svoboda | Aug 11, 2009 | Reply
Well said, Trevin.
Paul | Aug 11, 2009 | Reply
Christ did die for all the sins of the world. However, His blood cleanses only those who believe on His name. In other words, unless you believe in universalism, you limit the attonement to the believers (the elect).
Jorge | Aug 11, 2009 | Reply
Great post! I’m not sure, though, how biblical the language of “decision” is, especially as it’s been used since the seventeenth or eighteenth centuries. Might such language reflect more the individualistic anthropology of Western modernity than that of the New Testament?
Richard | Aug 11, 2009 | Reply
Once again a corrective word to some theologizers by a pastor actually in ministry. Thanks for your post.
Eric Peterson | Aug 11, 2009 | Reply
Good post, Trevin. I like the new site design too.
Chris Poe | Aug 11, 2009 | Reply
I find it amusing that Tevin’s point is that we can and should say what the Bible says the way it says it, but this thread is collecting comments which, simply put, cannot say yes to such a simple idea because it causes us to do something more than recite a truncated systematic point.
It’s people like you what cause unrest, Trevin. Keep up the good work.
Frank Turk | Aug 12, 2009 | Reply
Trevin,
Great post. I find it interesting that we are so soon to forget the reality of some things in Scripture that we just don’t know. There is mystery in sovereignty and choice. Very thoughtful and thought provoking. Thanks
Dave Coleman | Aug 12, 2009 | Reply
Thank you for posting what I have been trying to tell my Calvinist friends for years. Nothing unbiblical with telling others Christ died for the world, including you. How else will we know we have been saved? Do we trust in our faith, or in our Lord and Savior who tells us He died for us?
Julie | Aug 12, 2009 | Reply
I had some similar thoughts to what Frank Turk said, but he said them better, so I’ll just say “ditto”.
Brendt Waters | Aug 12, 2009 | Reply
since your concern is for “biblical language” … i recommend that we include the other aspects of the original … for example, the language of the gospel is one of IMPERITIVE more than decision. the gospel is given as a COMMAND to believe and repent. it is a gracious command but it is a fact that the gospel is to be obeyed … “decision” is a bit to “take or leave it” while command rightly suggests that there are dire eternal consequences to unbelief and willful rejection.
“deciding between heaven or hell” is not a friendly offer as much as an alarm to the unconverted. “why will you die in your sins”
i pray for a greater sense of urgency in our sharing the gospel.
Pastor Jim Sharp | Aug 13, 2009 | Reply
your calvin quotes address the universal offer of the gospel not the extent of the atonement. calvin did indeed believe in the great commission … preach the gospel to every creature. spurgeon said; we do this because we do not know who are the elect and we do this because it is commanded — but in the final analysis gospel forgiveness is ONLY for those who believe … this is contrary to some who say that “the ONLY SIN FOR WHICH SINNERS GO TO HELL … IS THE REJECTION OF CHRIST”. this is consistent with their view of universal atonement versus a particular atonement. otherwise…why will sinners be judged for all the sinful deeds they have done (which scripture clearly states)? many are called…few are chosen.
Pastor Jim Sharp | Aug 13, 2009 | Reply
Somebody asked me off-line if I agree with Trevin. I do.
This is the kind of trouble-making in the blogopshere and in broadly-reformed circles we all need more of.
Frank Turk | Aug 13, 2009 | Reply
One practical concern with Limited Atonement is there is no objective way of knowing one is died for. When asking my Calvinists what objective evidence they have of being died for without fail he or she will refer to something in themselves or thier history. One wants to define objective at that point.
David Cochrane | Aug 13, 2009 | Reply
Mr. Cochrane, speaking of accuracy…the flip-side of your implications are that if Christ died for you (generally speaking) then you know you are saved.
IOW, just because someone believes that Christ died for (really atoned for) everyone’s sin does not give way objectively declare that everyone is saved.
Mark | Aug 13, 2009 | Reply
Thanks for sharing, Trevin. I made a similar point in a recent post, which generated some helpful discussion.
Barry Wallace | Aug 13, 2009 | Reply
Mark
The benefits of the Cross of Christ is received by faith. Therefore, as stated clearly in John 3:18, those who do not believe are condemend already because of unbelief. If it were because of his or her not being died for that would be the reason for the condemnation.
David Cochrane | Aug 14, 2009 | Reply
David,
I believe that you’ve answered your own question. Also, not being died for does not condemn anyone.
Mark | Aug 14, 2009 | Reply
Even the Canons of the Synod of Dort do not neatly fit the sloganizing of today’s “5 Pointers”.
Our reformed forefathers did not see the need to accomodate the witness of scripture to the level of a comic book or slogan as we do today.
Question 37 of the Heidelberg Catechism says this…
Q 37. What do you understand by the word “suffered?”
A. That all the time He lived on earth, but especially at the end of His life, He bore, in body and soul, the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race; in order that by His suffering, as the only atoning sacrifice, He might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, and obtain for us the grace of God, righteousness, and eternal life.
Reformatus | Aug 14, 2009 | Reply
Mark
Not being died for would not condemn anyone?
David Cochrane | Aug 15, 2009 | Reply
Trevin, there may perhaps be “contradictory signals in Calvin’s writings.” Yet you rightfully have highlighted some of Calvin’s quotes “speaking in ways the Bible speaks.” For an introduction to such thought-provoking materials, I would recommend taking a look at “A Word for the World: Calvin on the Extent of the Atonement” (Paul Hartog) available at http://www.baptistbulletin.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/a-word-for-the-world.pdf
Hist.Eccl. | Aug 20, 2009 | Reply
Read Spurgeon’s Evening Devotion for August 6. He also stated in another place that Christ Redemption was particular and that it was for “a number no man can number.” That’s good enough and objective enough for me as I know that is straight from the Bible. Spurgeon was also equally sure that he despised an atonement that ensured no one’s salvation except one add man’s faith to it. He thought particular redemption was the only view equal to the task of redeeming lost sinners by actually paying the price for their sins. Christ did that very thing. He redeemed a people for Himself, and particular redemption is the doctrine with which to evangelize the world. The abstract of principles of the Mt. Pisgah Baptist Church formed in 1814 knew only of Christ dying for the church. That church’s messengers were present when the Sovereign Grace Confession of Sandy Creek Baptist Assn. was adopted in 1816 under the leadership of Luther Rice, the father of Southern Baptist missions. Basil Manly, Sr., was a member of that Committee chaired by Rice to draw up that Confession and he was the father of Southern Seminary, “a decided Calvinist” as Boyce called him and yet as gentle with it as any one could desire. From that church came the first Southern Baptist Missionary to China, Matthew T. Yates who went out to win souls with the doctrine that Christ did for the church. Could there be a bit of paradoxical intervention on God’s part with particular redemption? After all Jesus said so the woman of Canaan could hear in Mt.15:21-28, “I a not sent but to the lost sheep of the housse of Israel.” And that woman thought it was an invitation to worship. To the hungry even a bitter thing can be sweet. How about limited atonement to win the whole world in one generation and a thousand mor after that. Spurgeon prayed for the whole earth in that devotion mentioned above. Why can’t we form prayer groups to plead with God the promises which Jonathan Edwards set forth in his Humble Attempt for just such a blessing as the whole earth to be converted in one generation (and I mean every soul on it) and then for a thousand more generations. After all, the promises set forth in that tract were pleaded by William Carey and others in England which resulted in the origin of modern missions. I think they were also pleaded by people who experienced the Second Great Awakening in America.
Dr. James Willingham | Sep 3, 2009 | Reply
Dr Willingham,
The point being that limited atonement is not to be found in scripture. Appealing to the large number of the redeemed notwithstanding particular atonement is a philosophical construct read down on top of scripture. It is unclear why it has to be done except to explain something God has kept to himself. “Why are some saved and others lost?”
David Cochrane | Sep 6, 2009 | Reply
Dear David: If limited atonement is not found in scripture, pray tell why Jesus said so the woman could surely hear, “I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel”? Evidently the doctrine is taught in scripture as an invitation to worship, even to salvation. That is, at the very least, the implication in Mt.15:21-28. Jesus also took the same approach with reference to another of the doctrines of grace in His home town of Nazareth, viz, Elijah was not sent to any widow in Israel, but to a widow of Sarepta, a city of Sidon, and Elisha did not heal any leper in Israel, but he did heal Naaman the Syrian. His fellow Jews in Nazareth went ballistic and acted like a pack of dogs (the word Jesus used with reference to the woman of Canaan in Mt. 15. Daivd, did you ever hear of paradoxical intervention? And what would our Lord’s purpose be in introducing limitations – unless it was to bring about a humbling of the person to be saved, teaching them that salvation is not a thing deserved, not something one can automatically expect. One reason for preaching limited atonement is precisely to get more people truly saved, for without true humility not a single person will ever find deliverance. And the implication of Grace is the undeserved, even ill-deserved nature of it. Amazing grace teaches us what a wretch we are, and John Newton was certainly exalting the very heart of Sovereign Grace in salvaion in his, the most popular of all Christian hymns. When you sing it, you sing of unconditional election, limited atonemnt (or better yet particular redemption because the power is in the blood), and God’s saving man, a totally depraved, totally disabled, desperately wicked sinner. Such is the theology of the first and Second Great Awakenings and of the origins of the Great Century of Missions. And such is the theology of hope for the future, the most intensely inviting, attractive, compelling, wonderfully irresistible reality the world has ever seen or will ever see. These doctrines are also the means of maturing; they are all two-sided and apparently contradictory, and when held properly, they enable the believer to be balanced, flexible, creative, and magnetic or, in other words, mature which is the most attractive thing to the immature.
Dr. James Willingham | Sep 6, 2009 | Reply
Dr Willingham, Actually that statement was to demonstrate her faith. Her answer was not to go off upset at Jesus’ stated indifference. If her only request to get something out of Jesus she never would have continued. This shows God’s work in her heart to believe. So this definately is not a section which proves Limited Atonement. Quite the contrary Jesus was there for her in spite of being Canaanite and not of Israel. That was practically unheard of in the false cult of Judaism. Imagine that God was there for others. Rediculous!
Luke 24:47 Shows us that repentance and the forgiveness of sin are to be proclaimed not Limited atonement.
A sinner cannot humble him or herself God must do that for them and it is done thru preaching the harshness of the law. After the person is totally killed off the life giving Gospel is presented in all its radical sweetness. This is how God, through the preaching of his word, delivers saving faith into the ears of sinners.
David Cochrane | Sep 7, 2009 | Reply
Dea David: Have you ever heard of paradoxical intervention? Clearly, our Lord laid out for he woman and He did for His fellow citizens of Nazareth a presentation of something seemingly contradictory and antithetical. J. I. Packer calls such teachings antinomies. I prefer the idea of paradoxes as the intervention idea flows from it. Also there is a form of math with an inverse function.God is a little bit more subtle than we imagine. In fact, he requires subtlety of us as in “Be ye wise as serpents and harmless as doves.” Mr. Spurgeon kindly pointed out how much limited atonement people preach who try to proclaim a universal/general atonement. The Universalist (everybody will be saved) can’t get all of his saved in this life. The others add man’s faith to the atonement, so that it is the atonement of Christ plus man’s faith, whereas the Bible actually teaches that saving faith is a gift of God’s grace. Jesus demands the Impossible, as in Mk.10 in order that man might feel his helpless and look away from himself to the Lord for true help, mercy, and salvation. One cried out with tears, “Lord, help my unbelief, that is, help me overcome my unbelief.” Another appealed directly to our Lord’s Sovereign Will,”Lord, if you will, you can make me whole.” This David is the theology of the First and Second Great Awakenings and of the origins of the Great Century of Missions. Didn’t you know it?
Dr. James Willingham | Sep 8, 2009 | Reply
Yes im familiar with the revivalist style of preaching both in the Calvinist vein as well as the Arminian vein. The most familiar sermon is of course the inappropriately named “Sinners in the hands of an angry God.” That sermon is better titled “Sinners in the hands of an angry preacher.” Where one can applaud Edward’s execution of the law on the sinner Christ crucified was not mentioned. Only a vague reference to flee to Christ without telling of the finished work of Jesus.
This is similar to the garbage that passes for preaching in many sermons today. Telling people that now they are saved now they can muscle up against sin and overcome it. This is in contrast for what the Evangelist states is the victory that overcomes the world. our faith.
Those awakenings were well meant im sure but what it has done is give the churches coming out of Rome a shove back toward Rome. That is to preach anything and everything but Jesus crucified.
David Cochrane | Sep 9, 2009 | Reply
David; You seem to really have a problem with the Great Awakenings. Having studied all 2000 yrs of church history, and having taken notes on the Inquisition and having observed Rome in operation, I must admit, your statement doesn’t make a bit of sense in the light of what I know about Church History. Based upon what I know, I think you don’t know what in the world you are talking about, Your just flailing away at a theology you don’t like – not really trying to answer it. You should follow up on Whitefield and Wesley and Edwards. By the way did you know Edwards “the angry preacher”??? rebuked Whitefield for his fillips at Harvard and the unconverted ministry? Edwards in one source even cited the case of Judas as an instance against those who attack ministers as unconverted. Hardly the actions of a an angry preacher or of a psychopath some scholars in the 20th century sought to hang on a man of tremendous intellect and spiritual commitment to the cause of Christ. You should also take a look at those who were converted that day when Edwards preached “Sinners in the Hands of Angry God.” and have you ever read his book on Charity (read Agape love in todays terms). Yes, he wrote a whole book on love. Friend, I am no particular admirer of John Calvin due to his role in the death of Michael Servetus, but I do study him and I find, except for the limitations of his break with the middle ages mind set on state and church, the man was no slouch of a scholar and a thinker. Also, he has had a far greater impact upon Western Civilization than most people suspect, and I mean an impact for good. John Witherspoon, the famous Presbyterian Scholar of Princeton was one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Edwards had a profound influence upon the origin of missions. His tract, Humble Attempt (an appeal for uniting for prayer for the propagation of the Gospel among the Heathen) inspired William Carey and others in England to pray for and began the Great Century of Missions. Edwards’ Humble Attempt and his theological works had a profound influence on Americans who prayed for and who had a part in the Second Great Awakening. Where you coming from, dear brother? the positive influences of the Awakenings are well-noted in both British and Amrican History. There are works, for instance,which demonstrate that the Awakening in England saved that nation from the radical blood letting of a revolution like that which the French experienced. In America I know of a one family which made a tremendous contribution to our nation, a family where the mother and two of her sons were converted under Ev. George Whitefield. One of those son’s was a follower of French Infidelity until his conversion, and one of his descendants was U.S. Senator, candidate for President, and ambassador to the United Nations from the U.S. Another descendant is a Baptist preacher, a personal friend of mine. And you ought to compare the descendants of the Edwards family and those of another. The two are noted in pscyhological history, the Edwards for their contributions to this nation and the other for the expense they have cost society for their depredations. And lest you think I am to much on the calvinist side, permit me to say that I have a lot of Wesley’s works and have studied his life and like and admire him. You should read his letter accepting some of Whitefield’s efforts at reconciliation. Come, Brother, we got better things to do with our time than simply to rail at something we dislike. God bless you.
Dr. James Willingham | Sep 9, 2009 | Reply
Dr Willingham,
What about what Jesus wants proclaimed which I referred to earlier. Did the Great Awakenings change Jesus’ command in Matthew 24:47?
David Cochrane | Sep 11, 2009 | Reply
Whoops Luke 24:47
David Cochrane | Sep 16, 2009 | Reply
Great perspective, I completely agree!
Angie | Nov 15, 2009 | Reply
The Gospel is simple enough for a child to understand. To confuse what Jesus came to earth to do for a fallen humanity reminds me of 1 Cor. 3:19 which says, “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: ‘He catches the wise in their craftiness’.”
I wrote at my site several articles about Calvinism’s false gospel. For example, “He Who Creates That He May Torture”. No, God loves more than we can ever love, and to assign God the role of moving the puppet strings for one person to torture or rape another is a doctrine only a demon would make up. That’s “predestination” as a Calvinist’s logic would have to conclude. As far as limited atonement, it really doesn’t matter what the confused man, Calvin, believed. For us to believe in it is to deny many Scriptures; just one being 1 John 2:2 –”He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.”
Sincerely,
Rachel
Rachel | Dec 3, 2009 | Reply
Jesus said, “Be ye wise as serpents and as harmless as doves.” Even so you will still be charged as our Lord was with blasphemy, misrepresentation, heresy, etc. The interesting thing to me is what the people did with the Sovereign Grace Gospel. They reformed the church in the Reformation,experienced the First and Second Great Awakenings, launched the Great Century of Missions, established some of the freest nations that had ever been on the arth up to that time. Dr. George Bancroft called them “calvinistic republics.” Strange is it not that the greatest freedom comes from the seemingly most impossible teachings? Could it be that such theology really tells how bad man’s fallen condition truly is and that it takes a work of the Sovereign God in extreme sacrificial redemption and spiritual regeneration to save such? Three things are necessary for a Great Awakening according to the evidence available from the First and Second Great Awakenings, namely, the right theology, the irresistibly wonderful Presence, and the abject humility. John Newton summed up all three in his great hymn, the most popular of all, Amazing Grace. Surely, there is more freedom, more liberality, more compassion, more people saved, with teachings that are the perfection of the therapeutic techniques of psychiatry, psychology, and counseling, even those of paradoxical interventions.Like the lady said to Dr. Gene Spurgeon in 1965-66, “O it was so wonderful that I could not resist it.”
Dr. James Willingham | Dec 3, 2009 | Reply
Wow, that was a mouthful, Dr. W. Kinda a mouthful with no point. Unbelievable… how Calvinists love to quote man, not God’s Word. Or if they do, they twist it. Have you not read Rom. 8:28 and Gen. 50:20? It matters not what evil man does, God can turn anything around for good. Good things came of the Reformation in spite of it, not necessarily because of it. Are you trying to say that a lesser evil becomes good in itself just because it defeats a greater evil? Calvin was not a man full of the Holy Spirit, and if anyone thinks he was, they may need to read what the Scripture says in regards to murderers and those who oppress others, not to mention where deceivers and false teachers go. Do I sound disgusted? Yes, falsehoods about God and the way of salvation, especially that which Calvin taught, are repugnant. And Jesus and the apostles had some harsh words for those types. Because not only do they bring on themselves delusion, but they lead hoards astray. For that, one will be mightily condemned! (Gal. 1:6-9)
Well, God is the Judge, and we shall all soon see, shan’t we, who is correct and who was full of the “wisdom of this world” (1 Cor. 3:19) –even that which cloaked itself in “Biblical” language. –Like the devil loves to do.
Rachel
Rachel | Dec 12, 2009 | Reply
Yes, Rachel, we shall soon see, but harshness and prejudice, filters installed by the fathers of lies himself, can prevent us from seeing the truth. Calvin is not a significant person to me; he is one among many who had some elements of truth, but he did not understand all the implications of those principles that he had grasped. In 1965-66 Dr. Gene Spurgeon won a young lady to Christ. He was startled by how quickly she responded, and asked her why. She answered, “O it was so wonderful that I could not resist it.” When she said that, he said what I had said about grace being irresistible popped into his mind. He though about it for 40 years before he came to the conclusion that she was right: Grace is so wonderful that a person can find it irresistible. Having lived in Hell as a child and having seen the adults who were the factors in that Hell, touched by the grace of God and transformed, I eventully came to the conclusion, after my own heart was touched by it, that grace is wonderfully irresistible. Jesus said, Jn6:44,65, “No one can come to me except the Father which sent me draw him.” I was converted from atheism by a vision of
Christ standing at a door knocking. My response was to run the other way, but within an hour He opened the door to my heart so that I called on him to forgive me of my sins and cried tears of joy when a burden that I didn’t even know I had was lifted off of my heart. That was 52 years ago this past Monday (Dec.7). I have told my family that all I want inscribed on my tombstone are two verses, Rev.3:20 and Acts 16:14, because they describe what happened to me, a professing atheist on 12-7-1957. Interestingly enough, last Monday we enjoyed a birthday day dinner with our grand daughter (it was her 9th birthday) compliments of our son who is also a minister of the Gospel. God grant that you might realize the wonderful grace about which John Newton wrote in the most popular hymn of all time, Amazing Grace, which is an expression of praise to God for just such grace. You might want to remember that religious liberty was first put into law by two calvinistic Baptist preachers, Roger Williams and Dr. John Clarke in Rhode Island in the 1600s. The great Methodist Historian, Dr. William Warren Sweet, paid tribute to the Baptists for that great principle. John Calvin’s problem was that he did not realize the implications of what he had come to believe, but Williams and Clarke, amog other Baptists in the 1600s & 1700s did (and some were Arminian). Eventually the Sovereign Grace believers would realize that God can work even among those who hold that Jesus tasted death for every man as the principles for the union of Separate and Regular Baptist in Va. in 1787 imply. True liberalism actually comes out of paradoxical interventions. Think of the implications of that fact, and the Lord bless you as we prepare for the greatest manifestation of the grace bought for us on Calvary 2000 years ago, even the winning of the whole earth to Christ in one generation and then for a thousand more generations after that one. For such I have been praying since the Spring of 1973. God grant you to pray for the same, regardless of your beliefs. Think what a blessing it would be to see the whole world fully persuaded and won to Christ by the proclamation of the Gospel without the slightest bit of coercion except for the winsomeness of God in His great grace. Like one fellow wrote in a Circular Letter in Virginia in 1816 about the Second Great Awakenng something to this effect, “While we don’t suppose it was a miracle, yet it was something remarkably like it” He was awe struck at the wondrous nature of what he had lived through in that great visitation. C.S. Lewis caught the flavor of such in his sci/fi work, That Hideous Strength, “they pull down Deep Heaven on their heads.” I don’t think Mr. Lewis realized it, but he was surely describing what I found in my researches in the Great Awakenings.
Dr. James Willingham | Dec 12, 2009 | Reply