Calvin contradicts his own teaching on Limited Atonement

[civic]

Calvin contradicts his own doctrine of LA.

But there were also false prophets among the people, as there will be false teachers among you also, who will stealthily introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master having bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. (2 Pet.2:1)

Calvin said :

Calvin preached that those for whom Christ died could be lost:

"It is no small matter to have the souls perish who were bought by the blood of Christ." (Sermon 6, 2 Tim 2:19, pg. 83, A Selection of the Most Celebrated Sermons of John Calvin, John Calvin)

conclusion: even calvin contradicted his own beliefs because he held his doctrines on a parallel with scripture- a big no no. he did the same thing with infant baptism and that all babies are saved hence denying one of his pillars- Total Depravity. Read enough and dig deep enough and the contradictions within calvinist soteriology becomes self evident and the contradictions became apparent for all to see.

hope this helps !!!

 

[TibiasDad]

What’s more, he simply assumes his premise of God’s election without dealing with the contradictory statement. His repeated statements to the effect that “we should not be shaken” are based on these assumptions, but nothing reconciles how these have been bought, and yet are not elect.


Doug

 

[civic]

What’s more, he simply assumes his premise of God’s election without dealing with the contradictory statement. His repeated statements to the effect that “we should not be shaken” are based on these assumptions, but nothing reconciles how these have been bought, and yet are not elect.


Doug

Yes indeed brother.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Here we go again. Focusing on Calvin and not scripture. IDGAF (fart) what Calvin says.

 

[civic]

Here we go again. Focusing on Calvin and not scripture. IDGAF (fart) what Calvin says.

Do you believe tulip is true ? Yes or no

If so give a better answer than Calvin

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Do you believe tulip is true ? Yes or no

If so give a better answer than Calvin

I'm not interested in discussing tulip or Calvin. If you have some scripture to discuss, go ahead and post it.

 

[civic]

I'm not interested in discussing tulip or Calvin. If you have some scripture to discuss, go ahead and post it.

So you are not interested in discussing the limitation of Christs atonement or predestination/election of the saints ?

What about mans depravity or inability ?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

So you are not interested in discussing the limitation of Christs atonement or predestination/election of the saints ?

What about mans depravity or inability ?

I've already provided scriptures on these things. What more do you want?

 

[Maurice]

Some Calvinists appeal to a small number of verses alleged to directly support limited atonement:

Matthew 1:21: Christ came to save his people.

John 10:15: Christ lays his life down for his sheep.

Acts 20:28: Christ purchased the church with his own blood.

Ephesians 5:23: Christ gave himself for the church.

The argument proceeds as follows: these verses state Christ died for a specific group (his people, his sheep, the church). Therefore, the necessary implication is that he did not die for others not subsumed in these categories. This argument commits the negative inference fallacy which states that specificity in a statement does not entail exclusion of tho se not among the specified group. Bare positive statements that Christ died for his “sheep,” “the church,” or “his people” cannot be legitimately interpreted to mean he did not die for others not in these categories. For example, if I say, “I love my wife,” that does not necessarily entail that I love only my wife and therefore do not love my son, daughter, or someone else. To assert such is to ma ke a logical error. This is the mistake made by all who attempt to affirm limited atonement from these texts.

Calvinists take the phrase “his people” in Matt 1:21 and interpret it theologically to refer to those whom Christ has elected to salvation. According to limitarians, since Christ died only for those whom he has unconditionally elected to salvation, this verse is taken as confirmation of that view.

However, to interpret “his people” in Matt 1:21 as the elect is hermeneutically flawed and a gross anachronism. Nowhere in Scripture does the phrase “his people” refer to anyone or anything o ther than the nation of Israel. A simple concordance search of the phrase makes this evident. A survey of the major exegetical commentaries on Matthew reveals that no commentator interprets the phrase “his people” to refer to anyone other than the nation of Israel, including most Reformed commentaries on Matthew.

I find it interesting that Reformed systematic theologians often use this text as evidence of limited atonement, but Reformed biblical exegetes seldom if ever do. They know better. “His people” may be theologically used to describe the elect in Reformed theology, but it is never so used in Scripture. Again, the negative inference fallacy comes into play, since God saves more than Jewish people; he also saves Gentiles. No matter how one slices it, using Matt 1:21 to support limited Atonement is preposterous.