The Error of John Calvin

[OZOS]

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.

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. 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. 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.

Millions of people have adopted this erroneous view, and have laid waste the message and power of the Gospel to save "whosoever will".

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.

ALL men, without exception, are dead because of the one offense of Adam, yet ALL men are justified to receive His life.

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.

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. 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.

 

[Idolater]

I think his error was in rejecting the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, or that the importance of the Apostolic Church office of a bishop (the authorized pastorate, cf. 1 Ti 3:1) has diminished or even ceased entirely.

 

[OZOS]

I think his error was in rejecting the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, or that the importance of the Apostolic Church office of a bishop (the authorized pastorate, cf. 1 Ti 3:1) has diminished or even ceased entirely.

The RCC is an anti-Christ cult.

 

[Idolater]

The RCC is an anti-Christ cult.

There is no weakness in Catholic ecclesiology, and you don't even have an ecclesiology. Church is literally a topic, subject, character in the New Testament, and you don't even have a thing to say about it. Your ecclesiology is null.

'Curious.

 

[OZOS]

There is no weakness in Catholic ecclesiology

The RCC has no relationship to the Church, the Body of Christ.
The Eucharist is outright blasphemous. Those who participate in it, are intentionally rejecting the once for all sacrifice for sins.

"And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified."

His enemies are those who continue to make sacrifices and offerings for sin.

 

[Idolater]

The RCC has no relationship to the Church, the Body of Christ.
The Eucharist is outright blasphemous. Those who participate in it, are intentionally rejecting the once for all sacrifice for sins.

"And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified."

His enemies are those who continue to make sacrifices and offerings for sin.

You base your thoughts on the Scripture, no problem. Problem is that there were 17 years, from the Ascension to AD 50, where the Church existed, lived, operated, without a single New Testament book. Mark, or Galatians, or 1st Thessalonians was written that year, one of those books is chronologically the first NT book written, before then, the Scripture for the Church was the Septuagint, or LXX, scripted in the Greek.

For context, in 2004, 17 years ago, Facebook was invented, incumbent President George W. Bush defeated John Kerry for reelection, Yasser Arafat, Marlon Brando and President Ronald Reagan died, the words "podcast" and "social media" came into being, the Boston Red Sox won the World Series for the first time since 1918, and NFL quarterback Tom Brady won his second of now seven championships.

What are your thoughts about what occurred during this 17 year period? And I mean, with the Church, the Body of Christ. What did they do during these 17 years of scriptural silence? I think Acts 2:42 sums it up. And that just looks like Mass.

 

[Right Divider]

You base your thoughts on the Scripture, no problem. Problem is that there were 17 years, from the Ascension to AD 50, where the Church existed, lived, operated, without a single New Testament book. Mark, or Galatians, or 1st Thessalonians was written that year, one of those books is chronologically the first NT book written, before then, the Scripture for the Church was the Septuagint, or LXX, scripted in the Greek.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are not "New Testament books" as the vast majority of the text is OLD testament Israel.

The RCC has so brain-washer its followers.

The RCC is a horrible fraud.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The church at Rome is "Mystery, Babylon" (Rev.17:4-5).

 

[Idolater]

The church at Rome is "Mystery, Babylon" (Rev.17:4-5).

You made that up.

 

[Idolater]

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are not "New Testament books" as the vast majority of the text is OLD testament Israel.

The RCC has so brain-washer its followers.

The RCC is a horrible fraud.

It doesn't make any difference. Let's say I'll agree that MML&J are Old Testament. You still won't agree that Acts is New Testament, you'll argue that the New Testament has been put on hold, and that Acts, when it's talking about Paul, isn't the New Testament, it's Paul's dispensation of grace. The New Testament according to your camp would be just Peter's, James's, Jude's, John's epistles and Revelation. Instead of one New Testament, your camp would split it three ways, "rightly dividing" it into three categories. Old Testament, New Testament, and Paul.

"Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are . . . OLD testament . . ." is interesting, as an idea, and it's clearly ripe for spreading an idea like that, when Protestantism is eroding from lack of attendance due to livestreaming and zooming in, like the many canyons we see eroding through the continental shelf all around the world.

The pastors named in the New Testament are the original pastors of the Church, the Apostles, created pastors or bishops, by the Lord Jesus Himself. We read about Jesus in those books, but we also read about what the Apostles were like before they were the Apostles, which is contextually important because before the four Gospels revealed what went into creating these pastors with outsized influence, people only knew them as impressive and effective men.

 

[Right Divider]

It doesn't make any difference. Let's say I'll agree that MML&J are Old Testament. You still won't agree that Acts is New Testament, you'll argue that the New Testament has been put on hold, and that Acts, when it's talking about Paul, isn't the New Testament, it's Paul's dispensation of grace. The New Testament according to your camp would be just Peter's, James's, Jude's, John's epistles and Revelation. Instead of one New Testament, your camp would split it three ways, "rightly dividing" it into three categories. Old Testament, New Testament, and Paul.

I don't have a "camp", I simply take the Bible exactly as written.

Heb 9:16-17 KJV For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. (17) For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

It is crystal clear from that passage, that the new testament cannot begin until the death of the testator: Christ. Therefore, most of the books of M,M,L&J are NOT and CANNOT BE new testament.

And you are CORRECT, there is Old testament (that does NOT start at Genesis 1;1), New testament (that does NOT start at Matthew 1:1) and the body of Christ (in Paul's epistles). The body is Christ is not associated with ANY covenant or testament.

"Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are . . . OLD testament . . ." is interesting, as an idea, and it's clearly ripe for spreading an idea like that, when Protestantism is eroding from lack of attendance due to livestreaming and zooming in, like the many canyons we see eroding through the continental shelf all around the world.

It's not "an interesting idea", it's a FACT.

The pastors named in the New Testament are the original pastors of the Church, the Apostles, created pastors or bishops, by the Lord Jesus Himself. We read about Jesus in those books, but we also read about what the Apostles were like before they were the Apostles, which is contextually important because before the four Gospels revealed what went into creating these pastors with outsized influence, people only knew them as impressive and effective men.

Mat 19:28 KJV And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Luk 22:29-30 KJV And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; (30) That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

The TWELVE have a calling directly associated with ISRAEL. We, the body of Christ, do NOT.

Paul makes our (the body of Christ's) non-association with Christ in the flesh crystal clear:

2Co 5:16-17 KJV Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. (17) Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Just accept the scripture as written and you'll have a chance to actually understand the truth.

 

[Whatswot]

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.

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. 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. 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.

Millions of people have adopted this erroneous view, and have laid waste the message and power of the Gospel to save "whosoever will".

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.

ALL men, without exception, are dead because of the one offense of Adam, yet ALL men are justified to receive His life.

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.

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. 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.

“For God so loved the world........”
Everybody included nobody excluded . God is quite capable of saving everybody .
That He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever .......” that’s anybody out of everybody .wether living on the streets or in a palace shall believe on Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.
The call is to ALL to repent ,believe God and put your faith in Jesus Christ .
The promise however is to those who do . Not to those who don’t .
Christians today are often lazy in their thinking and much of Calvin is neither understood or his arguments properly followed . Be that as it may you must go to the source ; the scriptures . Not to one verse but “ all scripture” .

 

[OZOS]

“For God so loved the world........”
Everybody included nobody excluded . God is quite capable of saving everybody .
That He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever .......” that’s anybody out of everybody .wether living on the streets or in a palace shall believe on Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.
The call is to ALL to repent ,believe God and put your faith in Jesus Christ .
The promise however is to those who do . Not to those who don’t .
Christians today are often lazy in their thinking and much of Calvin is neither understood or his arguments properly followed . Be that as it may you must go to the source ; the scriptures . Not to one verse but “ all scripture” .

Who are you talking to and exactly what are you saying?

 

[Clete]

So it took Idolator one post - one single post - to hijack the thread. Awesome!

The opening post is brilliant! Just brilliant. There is only one point where I can find anything to quibble about at all....

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. 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. 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.

I think you've gotten the premise and the conclusion reversed here. The Calvinist belief that Christ's death is what saves us rather than being what makes our salvation possible and that the atonement was limited is the conclusion they draw from the premise that God chose the elect in advance and predestined them to be saved.

The premises of Calvinism flow in the following order....

Immutability -> Absolute Sovereignty (Meticulous control) -> Predestination -> T.U.L.I.P. doctrines as well most all of their distinctive doctrines.

This does not effect the point you make with your post. Your point still totally stands and, in fact, I'm quite certain that there are Calvinists who would even present the argument just the way you have presented it but in so far as Calvin himself was concerned and the actual thought processes that produced Calvinism, it was Calvin's theology proper that was the chicken that laid this particular soteriological egg.

Clete

 

[Whatswot]

Who are you talking to and exactly what are you saying?

I was talking to this particular forum on ‘ Calvin’ .
That the church today it would seem cannot either follow his argument (a common fault) or jump to their own conclusions rather as to what they think he is saying rather than follow his argument to his conclusions .
As far as I can see he like Paul in Romans used a biblical argument to substantiate his ‘ assertions’ .
Or rather reached conclusions as he climbed the hill and stopped every so often and said “ therefore “ in the light of this ...........then carried on .
Not many can or are willing to go to the top so to speak .

 

[OZOS]

I was talking to this particular forum on ‘ Calvin’ .
That the church today it would seem cannot either follow his argument (a common fault) or jump to their own conclusions rather as to what they think he is saying rather than follow his argument to his conclusions .
As far as I can see he like Paul in Romans used a biblical argument to substantiate his ‘ assertions’ .
Or rather reached conclusions as he climbed the hill and stopped every so often and said “ therefore “ in the light of this ...........then carried on .
Not many can or are willing to go to the top so to speak .

Calvin was not a believer, but a false teacher, with a false gospel. Those who adhere to his teaching do not adhere to God's message concerning Christ.

 

[Clete]

I was talking to this particular forum on ‘ Calvin’ .
That the church today it would seem cannot either follow his argument (a common fault) or jump to their own conclusions rather as to what they think he is saying rather than follow his argument to his conclusions .
As far as I can see he like Paul in Romans used a biblical argument to substantiate his ‘ assertions’ .
Or rather reached conclusions as he climbed the hill and stopped every so often and said “ therefore “ in the light of this ...........then carried on .
Not many can or are willing to go to the top so to speak .

I don't believe you.

If what you say is true and Calvin "used a biblical argument to substantiate his [doctrine]" then show us the argument. Show us the biblical argument that Calvin used to conclude that Christ's death is what saves the elect and that the atonement is limited only to the same.

Go ahead! Show us Calvin's biblical argument. I can't wait to see it!

Clete

 

[Leatherneck]

You base your thoughts on the Scripture, no problem. Problem is that there were 17 years, from the Ascension to AD 50, where the Church existed, lived, operated, without a single New Testament book. Mark, or Galatians, or 1st Thessalonians was written that year, one of those books is chronologically the first NT book written, before then, the Scripture for the Church was the Septuagint, or LXX, scripted in the Greek.

For context, in 2004, 17 years ago, Facebook was invented, incumbent President George W. Bush defeated John Kerry for reelection, Yasser Arafat, Marlon Brando and President Ronald Reagan died, the words "podcast" and "social media" came into being, the Boston Red Sox won the World Series for the first time since 1918, and NFL quarterback Tom Brady won his second of now seven championships.

What are your thoughts about what occurred during this 17 year period? And I mean, with the Church, the Body of Christ. What did they do during these 17 years of scriptural silence? I think Acts 2:42 sums it up. And that just looks like Mass.

Since there was no Roman Catholic Church before 350 ad you are believing your spoon fed lies, sadly.

 

[Omniskeptical]

Since there was no Roman Catholic Church before 350 ad you are believing your spoon fed lies, sadly.

There was probably non RCC before Charlemagne and the great schism.

 

[Idolater]

... there was no Roman Catholic Church before 350 ad

There was probably non RCC before Charlemagne and the great schism.

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.