Quote from: [cduncster–CD] on October 13, 2012, 06:25:01 PM (my response to the forum administrator’s assertion that men like Calvin were contributors to the faith):
Quick example of Calvin denying the heart of the gospel – the efficacious atonement of Jesus Christ:
“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.” [Commentary on Romans 5:18]
Calvin is here saying that although Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, yet all do not receive Him. If he had just said, “Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world,” we could have considered the possibility that he could have meant “the whole world of the Jews and Gentiles” or “the whole world of the elect” and not everyone without exception. But he goes on to say that “all do not receive him,” which means that he believed that Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, including all who do not receive him.
This is not a contribution to the faith, sir.
glfredrick [Pastor, Mapledale Baptist Church, Sheboygan, WI–CD] responded:
Are you suggesting that Christ has provided UNIVERSAL salvation? According to the Scriptures, rightly divided and with a proper hermaneutic [sic], did or did not Christ suffer for the sins of the world? And, according to the Scriptures, same stipulation, are all saved or not?
Huh? I THINK I understand (maybe) what he is asking, but I would rather ask him for clarification on what he is trying to ask. But since I’ve been banned indefinitely from the forum, it’s not likely I’ll get to ask him that.
A good many of us here have read exhaustively the works of the Reformers. Further, we have read and studied the Word of God, which is a more sure guide for us than the Reformers who, by the way, did the same thing. Perhaps you will review for us John Owen’s “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ.” I would be very interested to see your “critical” review of that work.
Interesting — glfredrick would be “very interested” in such a critical review while Markus Leoninus would (most likely) not give a rip. But, as we saw in Leoninus’s long-winded post, he was “interested” enough to type out a long-winded post. But what’s with glfredrick’s response here? Does he think that John Calvin & John Owen were like-minded on the atonement of Christ? They were not.
I have made “critical comments” on John Owen’s various works (including his Death of Death). I plan on breaking up some of my comments into more manageable chunks, but for now here is a “John Owen” tag: