The Error of John Calvin

Omniskeptical

Well-known member
It doesn't matter. It is the institution of the office of a bishop (cf. 1st Timothy 3:1) that identifies the One Church of the Bible. That institution was established by the Apostles, who all acted with the authority of Christ. They instructed the first generation bishops like Timothy and Titus to cultivate the institution as well, and it has never ever stopped since then. All those bishops today are basically either Catholic or Orthodox. None of them are Calvinists or Nontrinitarians.
So are you saying the office of overseer makes even protestant churches "catholic". The church as a whole which is what catholic means. Catholic is Protestant now. And Rome didn't and doesn't still believe in freedom of conscience.
 
Last edited:

Leatherneck

Well-known member
It doesn't matter. It is the institution of the office of a bishop (cf. 1st Timothy 3:1) that identifies the One Church of the Bible. That institution was established by the Apostles, who all acted with the authority of Christ. They instructed the first generation bishops like Timothy and Titus to cultivate the institution as well, and it has never ever stopped since then. All those bishops today are basically either Catholic or Orthodox. None of them are Calvinists or Nontrinitarians.
Nope, the RCC was established by Roman politics idolatry and all.
 

Lon

Well-known member
John Calvin started a movement that has penetrated and seduced millions of people for nearly 500 years.

Sadly, the reformed view (Calvinism) of the Gospel contains an egregious error that has laid a foundation contrary to Paul's doctrines on justification and salvation that must be addressed and exposed. In fact, believing Calvin's message about the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus and His resurrection may indeed place the follower outside the faith.

Jesus died for OUR sins is an essential foundation to the Gospel message. To exclude His once for all sacrifice for the sins of the whole world is to proclaim, not only a false gospel, but to strip THE Gospel of it's power to save. Today's reformers are convinced and convincing their disciples that the propitiation for our sins was a "Limited Atonement" for the "elect" who were "predestined" for salvation.

How did they arrive at that, and why is it important?

First of all, the "Limited Atonement" doctrine was established from a complete misunderstanding of the death of Jesus. Whether it was Calvin's absolute view or derived from his view is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it is a view held today by many who are having an impact on Christianity around the world.

"For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." Rom 5:10

Reformers believe and teach that they are saved by the death of Jesus. However, the death of Jesus does not save anyone.

The death of Jesus for our sins is absolutely essential for anyone TO BE saved, but man's problem is greater - he is dead and needs life.

It is the death of Jesus that justifies us to receive His life, and it is His life that saves us, not His death.
🤔 We disagree at times. On this one, I believe His death also necessary, without out, there would be no remission of sins. Paul goes so far as to 'bury' us with Him 'to be raised to life.' I don't believe one can separate His death and life from our salvation. Paul declared the gospel as His death, burial, and resurrection, they whole thing an act of His saving work.
Believing that His death saves us is why the reformers must believe that His sacrifice for sins is "limited" to only those who God has "chosen" and "predestined" for salvation.
Agree.
According to their logical progression, His sacrifice for sins must be "limited" to a specific group of people, because if it was for the whole world, then the whole world would be saved.
Agree.
This is why God had to choose and predestine who the sacrifice is for, because, to the reformer, Jesus died only for those who are saved.
This is true as well. You apprehend this part correctly, as far my grasp.
Millions of people have adopted this erroneous view, and have laid waste the message and power of the Gospel to save "whosoever will".
It isn't 'laid waste' as it is more about 'hind sight.' Of all the doctrines of Calvinism, this one has always been the spur in the heel for me. I come at 'limited' a different way than most Calvinists. Many would call me 'Amyraldian' because of it and probably right in that sense although I'm not Catholic. Because I believe our Lord Jesus Christ preached to captives, my understanding is that Hades was divided into fire and the Bosom of Abraham called 'Paradise.' Thus "today you will be with me in Paradise," I believe literally happened (I'm completely open to correction/discussion on this).

This is why it matters and why I could/might/would be considered a Calvinist: Jesus didn't preach to those in fire. He preached to those in Paradise, the saints of old that were reported to have walked with Him prior to His ascension (again, completely open to discussion and correction). For me, then, in this sense, I see His atonement as 'limited' because the rift between fire and Paradise was already drawn. There is no atonement for those who were not in Paradise at the time so I see it as 'limited' though not in the same light as most Calvinists mean. We draw a different line where the Atonement is 'limited.' It may very well leave me Amyraldian (not Catholic).
As Paul continues to explain in 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."

It is the same ALL.
Agreed, and it leave me disagreeing with them, perhaps akin if not aligned on your position. "All" for me is all mankind afterwards, not those who were already separated in hades.
ALL men, without exception, are dead because of the one offense of Adam, yet ALL men are justified to receive His life.
Same with above, I'd agree all men now, not all men prior. Pharaoh was not atoned for. Atonement means 'made right with God.' Only men and women that prevail upon Christ are made right with God as far as I understand the scope of all atonement entails. Calvinists/Reformers and most Christians argue on this point that God does foreknow all of past/present/future but I don't believe it has to necessitate a limit in this sense, but see where most are coming from.
Salvation is life - His life. We are saved by His life, not by His death. His death makes that possible for the whole world, because as John writes:

"And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." 1 Jon 2:2

Therefore...

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for IT IS the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." Rom 1:16

Any attempt to remove man's response to the message of the gospel makes the gospel powerless.
Saul was persecuting the church and God literally intervened. Paul, I suppose it could be argued, 'could' have resisted and remained blind, but the story shows the great bulk with very little of Paul's as God saving him despite himself.
Paul challenges man's efforts this way: What do you have that you did not receive, and if you 'received it,' (meaning we did, all of it) then why do you act/boast as if you did not? 1 Corinthians 4:7 In context, it is a warning against arrogance, and I'm ever wrestling. It is like a man who holds to a life-raft. You may rightly say "I held on" but even the strength, everything, comes from Christ John 15:5 especially as it relates to my salvation (Colossians 1:17) "In Him all things hold together." Philippians 2:13 "It is God working in you, to do His desire..."
While there are certainly men and women who have been seduced by the false gospel of the reformers, it is not an indication that they themselves are not saved.
Can be. On this, it makes the most sense to me, to discuss the concepts. I believe this particular, between you and I, for instance, is not an issue of whether you or I trusted and trust Christ for salvation, but how we got there. As with the above analogy, standing saved on deck but arguing who had strength to hold and choose a life preserver, and the one who said "that was negligible and even that strength was given to me" is not arguing neither of them were saved, but rather their part and what they are taking 'credit' as it were....for. I'm open to discussion here too, but aren't we talking about 'our part' at that venture? Is it a poor thing to believe Christ even gave me the muscles (belief) to hold on? That whatever portion I have is negligible? That I'm 'wholly' saved by Christ alone? This too is a driving force behind Reformed theology. Martin Luther (also a Reformer) believed one could 'sin boldly' such was the security of the believer. Some thought him bawdy in his lifestyle, but I don't believe this is what he meant: Only that men and woman are completely covered in Christ and that we should live in such a way that Christ and His saving power overshadows any intimidation Hebrews 4:16 "let us enter boldly into the Throne of Grace."
However, it is imperative that all those who have adopted that view, abandon it for the Gospel that can save anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord.
It is in this light I've entered. This section in particular, I desire to honor all believers, genuine believers, even and especially as we throw ourselves upon the grace and mercies of His saving work, power, and being. The thief on the cross did not know a lot of theology, he knew Jesus. When in Paradise "I'm with Him" was his only ticket. Paul said "...for me, living is Christ..." While 'what we know' is imperative, Who we know takes up a slack, especially because I'm convinced many people never know 'what' but trust in Whom. He is able to save to the uttermost, those who are perishing.

I have to believe this to a degree: My uncle had no mind. He could not but say to me: "Pray for me" concerning his salvation. He had mental illness and could not follow this conversation of yours and mine. The only thing he knew was to call upon the name of the Lord and then to ask me to pray for what his mind lacked. He'd never have been able to follow this conversation....perhaps now in glory.

My prayer is that there is something meaningful in our discussion that brings Him glory.

In our incomparable Christ, -Lon
 
Last edited:
Top