Well, the famed Heshusius quote just can’t carry the load. I have proposed an answer to the limited atonement use of the Heshusius quote. Cunningham, Nicole, et. al., have put too much weight on it.

In comment #5 above, you said:

“Anyone that refers to Roger Nicole as ’silly’ is nitwit and doesn’t deserve the time of day.”

And in comment #7, you said:

“…but on this subject he [Nicole] has a well deserved reputation as an authority and his veiws are anything but ’silly’-especially when coming from someone of Flynn’s caliber.”

As one can see, you’re saying that Flynn said Nicole is “silly.” You even put “silly” in quotes, as if that is something Flynn in fact said. Where is your evidence for that? Here is the post where you initially engaged Flynn about Nicole. As one can see, NO such comment was ever made by Flynn.

Since I did not recall the details of the conversation earlier, I said:

“If Flynn thinks one of Nicole’s arguments (which is different from referencing his person) is supposedly “silly,” then demonstrate the strength(s) of Nicole’s argument(s) to show otherwise.”

But, after reviewing the facts, he [Flynn] doesn’t even say that his arguments are “silly.” About all one can do is attempt to say that he did what is functionally equivalent to that by what he said, which is still different from calling Nicole “silly.”

Regarding Rainbow, Flynn said that he is not engaging in “good historiography.” As Flynn made critical comments about their arguments, he clearly says “there is no need to make it personal tho.” He does say that he sees “sloppy work,” and that Rainbow engages in “fanciful interpretations” of Calvin (and with warrant, given what Rainbow says on page 171 of The Will of God and The Cross). Nicole is said to be, at times, engaging in “pure speculation.” Flynn doesn’t want to give them, or anyone else “cult-like expert status such that their claims are not testable or correctable.” After these type of comments, you claimed that Flynn was “heap[ing] disdain on them!” Flynn then said, “I reject the idea that I was “even more dismissive.” That is just not true, Gary.”

I don’t see anything here which qualifies as calling Nicole [or others] “silly.” Therefore, I think you falsely represented Flynn’s words, Gary. One can strongly disagree with the conclusions of Rainbow and Nicole, and even feel that some of their work is “sloppy,” and yet not show them “disdain.”

Anyway, I would personally rather avoid the issue of personalities and instead talk about the primary source data. To continue to discuss alleged ad hominem issues seems to just serve as a red herring. Let’s discuss Calvin’s own words in context, and see who is rightly representing him. Let us not give any man such hero-status such that criticism (and falsification) of their work is deemed a personal attack, particularly in this area where so many emotional reactions can take place, and have taken place historically.

“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. To communicate to us the blessings which he received from the Father, he must become ours and dwell in us.” Institutes 3.1.1.

“On the other hand, suppose he learns, as Scripture teaches, that he was estranged from God through sin, is an heir of wrath, subject to the curse of eternal death, excluded from all hope of salvation, beyond every blessing of God, the slave of Satan, captive under the yoke of sin, destined finally for a dreadful destruction and already involved in it; and that at this point Christ interceded as his advocate, took upon himself and suffered the punishment that, from God’s righteous judgment, threatened all sinners; that he purged with his blood those evils which had rendered sinners hateful to God;…” Institutes, 2.16.2.

“Once for all, therefore, he gave his body to be made bread when he yielded himself to be crucified for the redemption of the world; daily he gives it when by the word of the gospel he offers it for us to partake, inasmuch as it was crucified, when he seals such giving of himself by the sacred mystery of the Supper, and when he inwardly fulfills what he outwardly designates.” Institutes, 4.17.5.

“Now they sophistically disport themselves over Matthew’s version of the genealogy of Christ. Matthew does not list Mary’s ancestors, but Joseph’s [Matthew 1:16]. Still, because he is mentioning something well known at the time, he considers it sufficient to show that Joseph sprang from the seed of David, since it was clear enough that Mary came from the same family. Luke emphasizes this even more, teaching that the salvation provided by Christ is common to all mankind. For Christ, the Author of salvation, was begotten of Adam, the common father of us all [Luke 3:38].” Institutes, 2.13.3.

Gary,

John Davenant, the well-respected English delegate to the Synod of Dort, was making these same observations about Calvin’s views, and even citing him in his Dissertation on the Death of Christ. Andrew Willet and Issac Watts are other early sources. See also Owen Thomas, The Atonement Controversy: In Welsh Theological Literature and Debate, 1707-1841, (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth, 2002), p. 123. Are we all “cherry-picking” and “turning a blind eye” to the evidence (i.e., so far your one quote)?

Again, I am still curious about your thoughts concerning Rainbow’s assessment of Calvin’s view on 1) God’s universal love and 2) God’s universal saving will. Do you think Jonathan Rainbow’s research is credible on that point? And what about Nicole’s view on the Heidelberg school? Is he right that they (Ursinus, Paraeus and Kimedoncius) did not teach a form of universal redemption? Flynn, as you know, has documented quite a bit from these men as well. Does the “cherry-picking” accusation pertain to all of Flynn’s documentation on the early reformers in your view? Or just the Calvin material?

1) Why are you automatically thinking that by “wicked” Calvin means “non-elect” or “reprobate”? I was the one who long ago originally said:

“It is interesting how some high Calvinists immediately, as if unconsciously, take the term “wicked” and convert it into “non-elect”. It doesn’t even seem to occur to them that they slide right into thinking of the “wicked” as the “non-elect” in dealing with this quote. In their desperation to use this single Calvin citation to demonstrate their continuity with him on the atonement, they don’t even pause to consider the fact that the unbelieving elect are also “wicked” prior to faith, even as the rest (see Eph. 2:3). The ones that are not wicked are not the elect as such, but the believing elect. The “wicked” are the unbelievers, whether elect or not.”

G. Michael Thomas, I think, rightly remarks:

“There is no need, however, to understand this in any other way than to imply that the benefits of the atonement are only intended to be effective in the case of those who believe. Over against the Lutheran view that participation in the bread and wine invariably means participation in the body and blood of Christ, Calvin taught that participation in Christ is only through faith. The promise of the gospel is to all, but is only intended to benefit those who believe. Calvin’s many statements of the atonement as being for believers are in full harmony with his view that the atonement is for all, in the context of promise, and for some, in the context of election. For belief is the response both invited by the promise, and given by election.”

2) Is that all you’ve got in Calvin? Even William Cunningham admits that “it stands alone,–so far as we know,–in Calvin’s writings, and for this reason we do not found much upon it;…” Do you want to “found” everything upon it, even against the hundreds that Flynn has gathered? Or do you have something else? Moreover, how does this quote square with other statements in that same tract wherein Calvin says “the sins of the world were expiated”?

“He might have some color for this, if I denied that the body of Christ is given to the unworthy; but as they impiously reject what is liberally offered to them, they are deservedly condemned for profane and brutish contempt, inasmuch as they set at nought that victim by which the sins of the world were expiated, and men reconciled to God.”

The follow quote also comes from the same debate with Heshuisus:

“It is indeed true, that contumely is offered to the flesh of Christ by those who with impious disdain and contempt reject it when it is held forth for food; for we maintain, that in the Supper Christ holds forth his body to reprobates as well as to believers….”

Is Calvin contradicting himself?

Blessings,
Terry