The Gospel testimony of John Calvin

[musterion]

You are correct about the argument from silence. However, based on everything else the man did write about salvation, combined with the lack of any personal testimony regarding the saving Gospel, it's not unreasonable to assume that, like all Catholics, he didn't believe it.

 

[Dialogos]

Calvin's Own Confession:

"A Short Confession" From John Calvin, Tracts and Letters, Banner of Truth Pub. Vol 2.

In regard to the method of obtaining salvation, I confess that Jesus Christ, by his death and Resurrection, most completely performed whatever was required to wipe off our offenses, that he might reconcile us to God the Father, and overcame death and Satan, that we might obtain the fruit of victory; in fine, received the Holy Spirit without measure, that out of it such measure as he pleases may be bestowed on each of his followers...

I confess that we are made partakers of Jesus Christ, and all of his blessings, by the faith which we have in the gospel, that is, when we are truly and surely persuaded that the promises comprehended in it belong to us...

I confess that we are justified by faith, inasumch as by it we apprehend Jesus Christ the Mediator given us by the Father, and lean on the promises of the gospel, by which God declares that we are regarded as righteous, and free from every stain, because our sins have been washed away by the blood of his Son...
​

And now let us watch as the goal post moves.....

:chuckle:

 

[Clete]

Calvin's Own Confession:

"A Short Confession" From John Calvin, Tracts and Letters, Banner of Truth Pub. Vol 2.

In regard to the method of obtaining salvation, I confess that Jesus Christ, by his death and Resurrection, most completely performed whatever was required to wipe off our offenses, that he might reconcile us to God the Father, and overcame death and Satan, that we might obtain the fruit of victory; in fine, received the Holy Spirit without measure, that out of it such measure as he pleases may be bestowed on each of his followers...

I confess that we are made partakers of Jesus Christ, and all of his blessings, by the faith which we have in the gospel, that is, when we are truly and surely persuaded that the promises comprehended in it belong to us...

I confess that we are justified by faith, inasumch as by it we apprehend Jesus Christ the Mediator given us by the Father, and lean on the promises of the gospel, by which God declares that we are regarded as righteous, and free from every stain, because our sins have been washed away by the blood of his Son...
​

And now let us watch as the goal post moves.....

:chuckle:

I'd have to say that that's good enough for me.

I wonder how many billions will go to Hell because of his completely irrational, not to mention blasphemous, doctrine though? I suspect Calvin had lots of tears for Christ to wipe away.

 

[musterion]

I'd have to say that that's good enough for me.

Then you should look at the original to see what the deceiver left out, only four paragraphs later:

I confess that our weakness requires that sacraments be added to the preaching of the word, as seals by which the promises of God are sealed on our hearts, and that two such sacraments were ordained by Christ, viz., Baptism and the Lord’s Supper—the former to give us an entrance into the Church of God—the latter to keep us in it. The [other] five sacraments imagined by the Papists [confimation, penance, anointing, matrimony and holy orders], and first coined in their own brain, I repudiate.

https://www.monergism.com/brief-confession-faith

So Calvin (and he's hardly alone in this) ditched five of the seven Roman sacraments but kept two. He said it himself: water baptism and eating the eucharist were required to be saved.

That's not what our apostle taught.

That's salvation by works.

That's a false gospel.

Now watch the goal post be uprooted, smashed and the whole stadium burned down.

Never trust anything the Reformed say without checking it for yourself.

 

[Dialogos]

Then you should look at the original and keep reading to see what the deceiver left out.

https://www.monergism.com/brief-confession-faith

So Calvin (and he's hardly alone in this) ditched five of the seven Roman sacraments but kept two. He said it himself: water baptism and eating the eucharist were required to be saved.

That's salvation by works.

No, its sacramentalism, which most Presbyterian and reformed churches believe today.

So again, the goal post just moved.

You appear to argue that anyone who believes in any form of sacramentalism is lost. So the gospel is 1 Cor 15 and a repudiation of sacramentalism, true?

 

[Clete]

Sorry Musterion, while I appreciate your thoroughness in checking the rest of what Calvin said in his confession, I can't agree that because someone erroneously adds some legalism to God's grace that therefore God's grace is undone for that believer or that such additions would prevent them from ever having been saved in the first place.

If you were arguing that Calvin hobbled his Christian walk by having added such rituals, I'd agree with you 100% but adding such things is no different than what the Galatians were doing when Paul asked whether they thought, having begun in the Spirit, that they could be made perfect by the flesh. He wasn't trying to say they were no longer saved or that they had never been saved in the first place. He was just telling them (and us) to stop trying to be what you already are, stop trying to be worthy what you didn't earn to begin with, stop trying to keep what can never be taken from you.

What do you believe concerning those who practice water baptism and partake in the Lord's Supper today? I'd venture to say that over 90% of all Christianity participates in those things. Have they believed a false gospel?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[musterion]

What do you believe concerning those who practice water baptism and partake in the Lord's Supper today? I'd venture to say that over 90% of all Christianity participates in those things. Have they believed a false gospel?

If they are trusting in those things in addition to Christ Himself in order to obtain or preserve salvation, as Calvin said he did, then they have believed a false gospel. Period.

But as I have said before, would that preclude their having believed the Gospel of the grace of God, the power of God unto salvation? No. But there is definite reason to doubt what gospel they actually do believe. And I have found many professing believers less than honest about what they actually believe they have to do to be or to stay saved...Baptists, baptizers, baptizees, legalists and lordship salvationists included.

In Calvin's case, his testimony sounds exactly like what you would expect from a medieval and even a modern Catholic. Yes, I hope the man was saved. I just see no Gospel evidence to convince me that he was, and I find the excuse of his full approval of murder on purely theological grounds ("That's just the way things were back then") totally unacceptable.

If you want to believe that he saved, as you like. I remain unconvinced.

 

[Lon]

I'd have to say that that's good enough for me.

:up:

I wonder how many billions will go to Hell because of his completely irrational, not to mention blasphemous, doctrine though? I suspect Calvin had lots of tears for Christ to wipe away.

None. Christ is in the business of Saving or else He isn't even Omni-competent. Also, the gospel message is the same scriptures. A couple of our posts back you agreed that God does the saving so I'm trying to strengthen your faith in Christ rather than problems with systematic theologies taking it away and I'm again appreciating the emphasis on Christ's work and saving gospel.

 

[musterion]

If you were arguing that Calvin hobbled his Christian walk by having added such rituals, I'd agree with you 100% but adding such things is no different than what the Galatians were doing when Paul asked whether they thought, having begun in the Spirit, that they could be made perfect by the flesh. He wasn't trying to say they were no longer saved or that they had never been saved in the first place. He was just telling them (and us) to stop trying to be what you already are, stop trying to be worthy what you didn't earn to begin with, stop trying to keep what can never be taken from you.

The Galatians were already demonstrably saved, however. We have that on the authority of Paul. I do not see that in the case of Calvin.

But by your same measure, Clete, do you accept all Catholics as saved but merely hobbled by ritual?

 

[Lon]

If they are trusting in those things in addition to Christ Himself in order to obtain or preserve salvation, as Calvin said he did, then they have believed a false gospel. Period.

I gave you a link to my testimony. Basically I was in an Arminian church so made to 'fear' and 'doubt' my salvation BUT, my point was that if I weren't saved, then there would be a lack in Christ's work. I believe I am saved by Christ alone, and was then. What I was made to think was 'my' part in keeping it didn't erase what Christ had done, thus I believe I rather was then, saved, and then latter came to understand how complete His work was. However, I am not too bothered that you or another might say I was never saved like that, but only after I came to realize and trust in His complete work, as long as Christ gets the credit for whenever He saved me and it is no longer a work of this man.

But as I have said before, would that preclude their having believed the Gospel of the grace of God, the power of God unto salvation? No. But there is definite reason to doubt what gospel they actually do believe. And I have found many professing believers less than honest about what they actually believe they have to do to be or to stay saved...Baptists, baptizers, baptizees, legalists and lordship salvationists included.

In Calvin's case, his testimony sounds exactly like what you would expect from a medieval and even a modern Catholic. Yes, I hope the man was saved. I just see no Gospel evidence to convince me that he was, and I find the excuse of his full approval of murder on purely theological grounds ("That's just the way things were back then") totally unacceptable.

If you want to believe that he saved, as you like. I remain unconvinced.

Much better than the initial OP, but I still think we (you) have to be careful about judging another's salvation. In fact, MAD is more against this than most others, except when dealing with what one does or does not understand. You MAD have to be careful that your own "logic" and apprehension doesn't become a work, lest it excludes all others from being Christians/saved, not that a right apprehension isn't essential because "how can they believe, unless someone preach to them." I tend toward trying to include as many as I can, because even Christ Jesus our God, Lord and Savior isn't willing that any 'should' perish.

 

[Clete]

If they are trusting in those things in addition to Christ Himself in order to obtain or preserve salvation, as Calvin said he did, then they have believed a false gospel. Period.

But as I have said before, would that preclude their having believed the Gospel of the grace of God, the power of God unto salvation? No. But there is definite reason to doubt what gospel they actually do believe. And I have found many professing believers less than honest about what they actually believe they have to do to be or to stay saved...Baptists, baptizers, baptizees, legalists and lordship salvationists included.

In Calvin's case, his testimony sounds exactly like what you would expect from a medieval and even a modern Catholic. Yes, I hope the man was saved. I just see no Gospel evidence to convince me that he was, and I find the excuse of his full approval of murder on purely theological grounds ("That's just the way things were back then") totally unacceptable.

If you want to believe that he saved, as you like. I remain unconvinced.

It is my general policy to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are not saved. But that has always been in regards to people who haven't died yet. As for Calvin, who is not in that category, I'm not sure I see the value in speculating. It's not as if we can change it.

 

[musterion]

As far as Calvin is concerned, fair enough. Now how about Catholics who believe the same thing about salvation is he said he did? Or anyone else who believes water baptism get you into the body of Christ and partaking of bread and or wine keeps you in it? Do you consider them saved but hobbled?

 

[Clete]

The Galatians were already demonstrably saved, however. We have that on the authority of Paul. I do not see that in the case of Calvin.

Not a terrible point but dangerously close to an argument from silence.

But by your same measure, Clete, do you accept all Catholics as saved but merely hobbled by ritual?

All? No, but Romans 10:9-13 is the gospel. I insist that people understand what is being said in those verses but no more than that. In other words, “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved” means something specific and it is necessary for you to understand that meaning and believe it. Outside of that, you cannot out sin the grace of God. You cannot contaminate the cleansing flood of Christ's blood no matter what else you get wrong or to what degree.

What people can do is grieve the Holy Spirit and try, try, try to be worthy of God's gift, all to no avail and in fact to their own detriment. People can waste their life, this side of the judgment, attempting to add to the finished work that Christ has accomplished and credited to their account but all such work will be tested in the fire of God's judgment.

I Corinthians 3:15 If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.​

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[musterion]

Not a terrible point but dangerously close to an argument from silence.

No it isn't. I expect condescension from others, not from you. The Galatians had already accepted his Gospel but we're now being lured into accepting another one. Hence his anger at false teachers and his frustration with them.

All?

So some are? Okay, tell me...out of all Catholics, which are truly safe in Christ via Paul's Gospel while still believing and obeying what Rome says they must do to be saved?

No, but Romans 10:9-13 is the gospel.

Side point but I disagree. Romans 10:9 is the proper response to the Gospel report that He died for our sins, was buried, and rose again for our justification.

I insist that people understand what is being said in those verses but no more than that. In other words, “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved” means something specific and it is necessary for you to understand that meaning and believe it.

Ah, now we're getting to it.

So is it also necessary to understand and believe that Paul also expressly forbad human religious effort as part of the Gift, and so expressly renounce works for salvation yourself? IOW, can someone believe from the ground up that Christ died for their sins, was buried, and rose again from the dead for their justification and also believe that there is some religious ritual or some degree of good work they must do to receive or maintain that justification? Is THAT person saved, do you think? I ask because this is precisely the sticking point with Calvin's testimony, what there is of it.

 

[Clete]

No it isn't. I expect condescension from others, not from you. The Galatians had already accepted his Gospel but we're now being lured into accepting another one. Hence his anger at false teachers and his frustration with them.

There was certainly no condescension intended at all!

As I said, it isn't a terrible argument. The portion that is an argument from silence, or at least approaches it, is when you make an assessment of Calvin based on the fact that you've not seen any gospel evidence that would convince you that Calvin was ever saved to begin with. I was merely restating my earlier point, that's all.

So some are? Okay, tell me...out of all Catholics, which are truly safe in Christ via Paul's Gospel while still believing and obeying what Rome says they must do to be saved?

That is not for me to judge or even estimate. The only honest answer is, "I don't know."

Side point but I disagree. Romans 10:9 is the proper response to the Gospel report that He died for our sins, was buried, and rose again for our justification.

We don't disagree much, if at all. This is effectively what I was alluding to when I said that the words contained in those verses mean and refer to something specific. You couldn't just read those few verses to someone and get them saved. The details are critical.

Ah, now we're getting to it.

So is it also necessary to understand and believe that Paul also expressly forbad human religious effort as part of the Gift, and so expressly renounce works for salvation yourself? IOW, can someone believe from the ground up that Christ died for their sins, was buried, and rose again from the dead for their justification and also believe that there is some religious ritual or some degree of good work they must do to receive or maintain that justification? Is THAT person saved, do you think? I ask because this is precisely the sticking point with Calvin's testimony, what there is of it.

Yes.

Otherwise you turn grace itself into a law.

Just because you got the 2nd half of it wrong, doesn't mean you didn't get the 1st half right. Or put another way, if someone pays off your debt but you continue to make payments, it doesn't mean that you're actually still in debt. The correcting of the error is a matter of discipleship not evangelism.

Do you believe that there were centuries that went by without hardly a single person getting saved?

Don't confuse the question for any sort of argument. It wouldn't be a valid one if it was intended as one anyway. I just ask because it seems to follow, based on what I think you're saying, that the whole of the Dark Ages which spanned approximately 1000 years, would have seen very little, if any, preaching of a pure Pauline Gospel of Grace. And come to think of it, if Luther and Calvin didn't preach it either then it would've been much more than 1000 years worth of gospel desert where hardly anyone at all heard a gospel that was capable of rescuing them from Hell.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[musterion]

We will just have to disagree.

Clete, until you can be as clear as Paul was on both the positive and negative terms of his Gospel, you really should lay off threads like this one. Please do not take that as an insult. It's concern.

Paul's Gospel is very simple, but also very specific. I know you're honestly and eagerly trying to frame your position as not wanting to limit the grace of God, and that is commendable as far as it goes. But it runs the risk of, in itself, limiting the grace of God by opening it up to potentially anything anyone wants to believe as long as it has a core which you interpret as being compatible with some things Paul said while not accounting for other things he said. I speak bluntly here: the read I'm getting from you reminds me of a step down the slope that has led some within the Grace movement into universalism. Clyde Pilkington for one, in whose writings I see similarities to some of the things you said here. Not saying you are or will be a universalist....just saying that I was watching as Clyde turned that corner and some of your reasonings sound familiar. Please be very aware of the conclusions some of your positions may draw you toward.

Break time. Enough for now.

 

[Clete]

We will just have to disagree.

Not necessarily. Convince me!

Clete, until you can be as clear as Paul was on both the positive and negative terms of his Gospel.....

Can you articulate them for me?
It would be helpful if you could state plainly just what it is that you believe concerning this issue. The thread started with talking about John Calvin's salvation or the lack thereof but it seems that its a far wider issue than Calvin or even Calvinism. It seems to impact very nearly the whole of Christendom throughout most of it's 2000 year history.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Don't worry about me taking offense at anything you say. It would be very nearly impossible for you to say anything to me that I'd find personally offensive, unless you just started trying to do so on purpose, which I can't see you doing. Who cares if we end up agreeing with each other on this or not? It would be great if we did but it doesn't matter. A major purpose of this website is challenge yourself. To make sure that you are prepared to give an answer for what you believe. It doesn't matter who you succeed in convincing, it only matters that the attempt was made and made well. Besides, what Calvinist are you going to find who will challenge you on this with one tenth of the intellectual honesty that you'll get from me? At least I want to be corrected if I'm wrong!