tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-354198312024-03-07T04:01:56.061-05:00Controversial CalvinismRomans 5:18: "He makes this favor common to all, because it is propounded to all, and not because it is in reality extended to all; for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God's benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him." ~ John CalvinStevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01602468757765608379noreply@blogger.comBlogger96125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-82969563947124865832010-05-03T02:28:00.002-04:002010-05-03T02:30:13.838-04:00Institutes 3.1.1 Christ Suffered for the Sins of the Human Race - Part 2I'm continuing the previous post on Roger Nicole's interpretation of Calvin's language in Institutes 3.1.1. Calvin wrote:
And the first thing to be attended to is, that so long as we are without Christ and separated from him, nothing which he suffered and did for the salvation of the human race is of the least benefit to us.
Institutes 3.1.1
Nicole's argument
Nicole's argument regarding Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01602468757765608379noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-79926473945818638442010-01-26T09:48:00.002-05:002010-01-26T09:51:00.717-05:00Assurance Must Rest on Universal Atonement - Part 2Faith is the foundation on which hope rests.
~Calvin, Institutes 3.2.42
This is Part 2 of my answer to a Pyro blogger. You can find part one here: Assurance Must Rest on Universal Atonement."
"Hope," in Calvin's language, would be the same as the modern word "assurance." When the modern evangelical speaks of assurance of salvation, he's speaking of the same thing that Calvin called hope.
Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01602468757765608379noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-40456671698476357392009-11-09T14:37:00.004-05:002009-11-09T15:52:10.318-05:00Assurance Must Rest on Universal Atonement - Part 1
Taking on a Pyro Blogger
One of the Pyro bloggers has given what he believes is an unanswerable objection to those who believe that limited atonement (as most commonly held) removes all grounds for assurance. His answer is part of a series of quick answers: short verbal jabs, intended to "checkmate" the theological opponent in fifty words or less. His stated goal in these short posts is to Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01602468757765608379noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-41432928654949276822009-09-05T11:54:00.003-04:002009-09-05T12:06:41.840-04:00Institutes 3.1.1 - Christ Suffered for the Salvation of the Human RaceI'm continuing my critique of Roger Nicole's treatment of Calvin. I have been focusing most recently on the many universal ("all mankind," "the world," etc.) statements in Calvin's work. Nicole makes an attempt at answering the moderates in the scope of a few pages (see Nicole, at 215-218. Nicole attempts to treat scores (or hundreds) of possible quotations from Calvin that have a universal Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01602468757765608379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-63536071896508934482009-08-24T13:04:00.004-04:002009-08-24T15:22:50.304-04:00Calvin Sermon - Christ Suffered for the Redemption of MankindSermons on the Deity of Christ
Moderate Calvinists have long pointed out Calvin's common use of expressions that denote universal atonement. There are many such statements, as I have mentioned before. Roger Nicole has taken a smattering of statements of that type and proposed some answers from the high Calvinists' perspective. I will attempt to deal with each of the Calvin quotes raised by Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01602468757765608379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-3543697082443812792009-06-27T02:52:00.007-04:002009-06-28T09:02:18.988-04:00Response to a critic of Impetration v. applicationA critic has written a response to my previous article Impetration v. application. You can find the critique at this link, and I invite you to read the critique and feel free to engage me or the author of the critique on the subject.
I note first that the critic has labeled me a "neo-Amyraldian." The critic doesn't know my views of Amyraut; he just wants a handy disapprobatory label. I am Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01602468757765608379noreply@blogger.com18tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-20667493607130499732009-06-21T23:36:00.003-04:002009-09-05T12:16:00.258-04:00Impetration v. applicationIn my previous blog post (entitled Did Christ's Sacrifice Actually Save?) about Roger Nicole's 1984 article, I began to treat his fifth argument in rebuttal to the myriad of universalistic (or at least universal sounding) statements produced by moderate Calvinists from Calvin's corpus. Nicole's fifth argument amounts to this: since impetration and application cannot be separated, Calvin's Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01602468757765608379noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-27917817524473589832009-06-14T14:19:00.005-04:002009-06-14T21:38:51.773-04:00Paul Helm and Calvin's Doctrine of FaithThis past February, Paul Helm published a blog post entitled "The Language and Theology of the Free Offer." (HT Tony.) Though I would take exception to significant portions of his discussion of the theology of the free offer of the gospel, I wanted to comment on one statement in particular and how it relates to Calvin's theology.
In that blog post, Helm says this:
It is not part of the Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01602468757765608379noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-1545270536019962232009-06-08T16:58:00.005-04:002009-06-21T23:08:56.391-04:00Did Christ's Sacrifice Actually Save?That's the way the question is put by most advocates of limited atonement. I clearly remember hearing Greg Bahnsen (on tape) say that very thing. Christ's sacrifice actually saves. This is in contrast to the Arminian position (and other non-Calvinistic positions) that says that Christ's sacrifice only potentially saves: it merely makes salvation possible.
Roger Nicole's Fifth argument againstStevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01602468757765608379noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-5008761138443126182009-04-19T23:37:00.003-04:002009-06-08T14:27:07.793-04:00John Calvin's many statements on the scope of the atonementI have been critiquing Roger Nicole's 1985 article defending the view that Calvin taught limited atonement. I have come to Nicole's rebuttal of the fifth argument of those who see Calvin as teaching a form of universal atonement. The fifth argument is the most powerful, and Nicole does little more than make a feeble protest.
The fifth argument is this:
Calvin, they urge, did repeatedly Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01602468757765608379noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-68475998414277779122009-04-03T17:03:00.001-04:002009-04-03T17:07:23.254-04:00More on Nicole and Calvin's "Wasted Blood" passagesIn my previous post on Nicole's rebuttal to the "wasted blood" argument, I omitted one point. In referring to those difficult passages that give reformed theologians pause (i.e., Romans 14:15, 1Corinthians 8:11, Hebrews 10:29, and 2Peter 2:1), Nicole says this:
The warnings of Hebrews and 2 Peter ... do relate to people who will ultimately be lost. * * * There is no way in which these Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01602468757765608379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-59271869625339141012009-03-31T10:41:00.005-04:002009-04-03T16:37:10.570-04:00Whose (sic) afraid of R.T. Kendall?Sean Gerety posted a comment to my recent paean to R. T. Kendall, in which he blasted my logic (among other things). I admit to admiring Kendall, but I plead innocent of defective logic, which (logic, that is) Gerety and his ilk aspire to honor. (A poor job of it, in my view.)
First I must call attention to Gerety's slander against David Ponter. Ponter is neither Amyraldian nor Arminian, and Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01602468757765608379noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-49707392986044998642009-03-18T19:20:00.005-04:002009-04-02T11:15:05.682-04:00Nicole on Calvin's "wasted blood" passagesRoger Nicole's fourth rebuttal to the moderate Calvinists treats Calvin's "wasted blood" passages. This is an important point, which Nicole skims over. There are many such passages in Calvin's corpus, and there ought to be some thought given to the answer. Nicole hasn't done it.
Cause to pause and ponder
Nicole refers to four scripture passages as giving the advocate of definite atonement "Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01602468757765608379noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-6492428939493626072009-03-17T16:17:00.003-04:002009-03-31T11:02:01.521-04:00Two Wills in Calvin's InstitutesJust a quick one today; I'll have another entry in my critique of Roger Nicole shortly (later this week, D.V.).
D.V.: it means "God willing." But there are two senses of God's will. This is much disputed by some, who seem unable (or unwilling) to speak of God having a will apart from his decree. (There are some on the other side, of course, who are unwilling to speak of God's decree.)
Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01602468757765608379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-76086755873275957562009-03-11T11:21:00.002-04:002009-03-31T11:03:44.408-04:00The Influence of R. T. KendallI was talking with a friend of mine recently (the unnamed one), and we discussed the rise of moderate Calvinism among modern evangelical theologians. I'm not speaking of the 4-point Calvinists (who tend to reject limited atonement outright), the dispensationalists, or nearly Arminian fundamentalists, but the Calvinist scholars who actually influence the community of TULIP Calvinists. I asked myStevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01602468757765608379noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-62575661878702147842009-02-26T13:13:00.003-05:002017-12-04T14:20:12.018-05:00Nicole v. Calvin on Ezekiel 18:32 and 2Peter 3:9Well ... I suppose one must devote a certain amount of energy to a blog if he intends to have one. So, back to the grind.Roger Nicole’s third rebuttal against the moderate (or “historic” or “non-continuity”) Calvinists is this:3. Calvin, they urge, ["they" referring to the moderate Calvinists, such as R.T. Kendall, Curt Daniel, et. al. - slc] takes at face value certain biblical texts which Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01602468757765608379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-76079210846804511452009-02-25T22:42:00.003-05:002009-02-25T22:53:27.991-05:00Arminian PerspectivesInteresting reference to my Nicole articles at Arminian Perspectives. I appreciate the link, and while I would take issue with Ben's argumentation and view of scripture, he appears to be a thoughtful person.
So why would I point out a link from an Arminian? (Gasp!) Well ... I appreciate the link and it's good to reciprocate. But it also points out a problem with making bad arguments: a bad Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01602468757765608379noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-17365175339743880222009-01-01T15:00:00.006-05:002009-01-03T17:43:51.780-05:00Answering Roger Nicole on 1Timothy 2:5 (part 3)
To briefly recapitulate: my first two arguments against Nicole's reading of Calvin on 1Timothy 2:5 consisted of examining the allegedly qualifying language of class vs. individual that Calvin used in his commentary on the verse. Whereas Nicole would have us read Calvin as speaking of some of all kinds of men, this doesn't seem to work when applied to two actual cases that appear in the Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01602468757765608379noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-41092363325998824362008-12-31T14:25:00.002-05:002008-12-31T14:36:52.563-05:00Part 2 of Dominic Bnonn Tennant's series on the atonementDominic shows an ability to think these things through and articulate them clearly. His language is forceful and direct. Here is a paragraph from his article:
Dominic Bnonn Tennant — On the atonement, part 2: the grounds for the universal gospel call
God simply cannot promise to save someone for whom Christ did not die. Such a promise would be empty; insincere; a lie—and it is impossible for Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01602468757765608379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-12314374987655262992008-12-23T11:11:00.004-05:002008-12-28T19:14:55.887-05:00Answering Roger Nicole on 1Timothy 2:5 (part 2)For whom are we to pray?
The second argument for not reading Calvin's "all" as "some of all kinds," is Calvin's view of whom we are to pray for. In 1Timothy 2:1, we are commanded to pray for all men. All men? Or all sorts of men? Let's do a comparison of John Gill, a hyper-Calvinist, with Calvin.
Here's a snippet of Gill's comment on verse 1:
[G]giving of thanks, as well as prayers, are Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01602468757765608379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-79457562431695481122008-12-22T21:16:00.005-05:002008-12-28T19:20:55.220-05:00Answering Roger Nicole on 1Timothy 2:5 (part 1)I want to revisit an argument that Roger Nicole made in his rebuttal to the first argument of the non-continuity (I would like to call them the “historic Calvinists” -- the fellows and gals who say that Calvin did not teach limited atonement) guys.
All doesn’t mean all
Nicole argues that there is a way of understanding Calvin’s use of universalistic language (“all” and such like) that doesn’t Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01602468757765608379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-40568734121460413122008-12-17T15:01:00.004-05:002008-12-17T15:10:23.350-05:00Issues in the Atonement - Federal headship and forensic ImputationA friend of mine (the unnamed one) pointed me to Dominic Bnonn Tennant's blog, "developing the mind of Christ." Dominic has started a really excellent series: "On the atonement." He opens the discussion with "federal headship and forensic imputation." He promises seven parts in the series, and I'm really looking forward to it. (Of course, it helps that he cites yours truly in part 1.) :-)Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01602468757765608379noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-60042985615415378312008-12-15T14:36:00.005-05:002009-11-05T23:16:06.836-05:00The Free Offer Incompatible with Limited AtonementIn Roger Nicole’s review of Calvin’s doctrine of limited atonement, Nicole lists several arguments of the non-continuity advocates (R. T. Kendall, Curt Daniel, et al) and offers rebuttals of those arguments. Here is his treatment of the second argument of the discontinuity folks (those who say Calvin did not teach limited atonement). The argument relates to the free offer of the gospel:
In Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01602468757765608379noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-3661024355133872572008-12-08T13:07:00.010-05:002008-12-10T13:39:31.777-05:00Calvin and God's Wishes
I was recently ransacking Tony's blog for a picture I could steal. I happened across this entry on Calvin's commentary on Lamentations 3:33. It's especially appropriate to the question of God's wishes or desires (optative expressions). An oldie but goodie.
I also draw your attention to Tony's most recent post, in which he has extracted from his own (and Flynn's ... shhh!) blog the Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01602468757765608379noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35419831.post-39823285613509350242008-12-08T11:24:00.008-05:002008-12-08T15:09:18.300-05:00The Usefulness of One-String Banjos
Theological One-String Banjos
Some of you who regularly read my blog may remember Tony Byrne's self-portrait. (I don't know where he got the photo; but it's good. I stole it from him -- with his tacit consent, of course.) If you want to see a larger version of the picture, click through to his blog and click on the picture there. (I said "self-portrait," but it's actually his view of how Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01602468757765608379noreply@blogger.com0