Read Calvin's Institutes in a year

[Carbon]

.48, those who willingly sin after receiving the knowledge of the truth have no sacrifice left for them. For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, Heb 10:26.

You see, it's not that Christ is continually sacrificed for anyone, but, if he is rejected, there is no other sacrifice. The book of Hebrews teaches that Christ's sacrifice was a one-time event. And if they willfully sin (deny him) they miss him. There is nothing else.

The last sentence: Moreover, it is rejected when the truth of the gospel is expressly denied.

So it's not merely sinning willfully (no one sins against their will) it's finally denying Christ.

Calvin, in the same chapter, further up in the paragraph says: - .....that a return to the communion of Christ is not open to those who nowingly and willingly have rejected him.

 

[Carbon]

.48, those who willingly sin after receiving the knowledge of the truth have no sacrifice left for them. For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, Heb 10:26.

You see, it's not that Christ is continually sacrificed for anyone, but, if he is rejected, there is no other sacrifice. The book of Hebrews teaches that Christ's sacrifice was a one-time event. And if they willfully sin (deny him) they miss him. There is nothing else.

The last sentence: Moreover, it is rejected when the truth of the gospel is expressly denied.

So it's not merely sinning willfully (no one sins against their will) it's finally denying Christ.

Calvin, in the same chapter, further up in the paragraph says: - .....that a return to the communion of Christ is not open to those who nowingly and willingly have rejected him.

I think it is possible to miss it, but after looking into it, it is quite explicit. Far from that Catholic doctrine.

 

[Carbon]

Yes, I believe you misunderstand him there.

I believe if you go back and re-read 23. How the impossibility of "second repentance" is to be understood. I can try to explain some, but to re-read Calvin himself is best. He is just so much more clear and better than I am.

Last thing on this for now.

Calvin writes, (first sentence)" now if you pay close attention, you will understand that the apostle is speaking not concerning one particular lapse or another, but concerning the universal rebellion by which the reprobate forsake salvation.

 

[Arial]

Okay, how does this Saturday, March 8, look to everyone interested, as a start day?

Works for me.

 

[Carbon]

See post #38.

Yes, I did a little more research. I think you may like this part and I believe it will settle it for you.
If you have time, please check it out.

The institutes: Titled, "Blasphemy against Christ. 4.18.2

 

[makesends]

In mine (Library of Christian Classics, edited by John T. McNeil), it is in Book 3, chp 3, #23, last two sentences.

"For when he (Paul) says that they who willing, sin after having received knowledge of the truth have no sacrifice left for them (Heb 10:26), he does not deny that Christ is a continual sacrifice to atone for the iniquities of the saints. Almost the whole letter eloquently proclaims this, in explaining Christ's priesthood. But he says that no other sacrifice remains when his has been rejected. Moreover, it is rejected when the trurth of the gospel is expressly denied."

Unless I misunderstand him, which would not be surprising. . .and he means continual atonement.

Continuing sacrifice (in the Mass) is Catholic doctrine.

Here he sounds to me like he is speaking in the rhetorical sense, that if someone (in our common speach) "was to reject" Christ's sacrifice, there is no other. But I haven't read the rest of his theology.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Here he sounds to me like he is speaking in the rhetorical sense, that if someone (in our common speach) "was to reject" Christ's sacrifice, there is no other. But I haven't read the rest of his theology.

It is said that those verses we often question in Hebrews are because the question arose surrounding what to do with the Christians of the early church who denied the faith to save their life but then regretted doing so and wanted back in communion with the believers

Reading Calvin it sounds like he's writing from the perspective that's what the verses are concerning - denying the faith specifically.


.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Okay, how does this Saturday, March 8, look to everyone interested, as a start day?

I am very pleased that you have chosen to do this on Saturdays. That works the very best for me.

 

[makesends]

I am very pleased that you have chosen to do this on Saturdays. That works the very best for me.

I must be missing something. Is this only a once per week thing?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Is this only a once per week thing?

What does "this" refer to?

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
Is this only a once per week thing?

What does "this" refer to?

The same "this" you referred to, unless I got you wrong, . Copied below, my underline

DialecticSkeptic said:
I am very pleased that you have chosen to do this on Saturdays. That works the very best for me.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I was referring to the discussions that we are going to have, which at least for me will be primarily on the weekends (Saturday–Sunday).

The readings will be on the weekdays (Monday–Friday), according to the reading plan.

 

[makesends]

I was referring to the discussions that we are going to have, which at least for me will be primarily on the weekends (Saturday–Sunday).

The readings will be on the weekdays (Monday–Friday), according to the reading plan.

Oh, ok. Cool

 

[Carbon]

Okay, how does this Saturday, March 8, look to everyone interested, as a start day?

It is set up as a Monday-Friday list. Let me know what you all think. Should we start saturday, or Monday? Ideas for the best way to run this?

 

[Arial]

It is set up as a Monday-Friday list. Let me know what you all think. Should we start saturday, or Monday? Ideas for the best way to run this?

Monday -Friday might keep it better organized in our minds.

 

[Hazelelponi]

It is set up as a Monday-Friday list. Let me know what you all think. Should we start saturday, or Monday? Ideas for the best way to run this?

Monday -Friday is good...

Are we doing a single thread for discussion? How are we doing discussion? I'm probably going to have dumb questions you know... Lol.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

You want me to read Monday to Friday AND respond Monday to Friday? Yeah, sorry, with a family, church commitments, and full-time work, Saturday is my only realistic option. I can read during the week and respond on the weekend. Best I can do.

 

[Carbon]

Monday -Friday is good...

Are we doing a single thread for discussion?

I'll start it off in the Institute area, that should probably be where we mainly keep us on track.

How are we doing discussion?

I don't think we should have a single area for discussion. It will probably spark many.

Thoughts?

I'm probably going to have dumb questions you know... Lol.

I highly doubt that.

 

[Carbon]

You want me to read Monday to Friday AND respond Monday to Friday? Yeah, sorry, with a family, church commitments, and full-time work, Saturday is my only realistic option. I can read during the week and respond on the weekend. Best I can do.

If that works for you, I'm sure that will be fine.

 

[makesends]

I

It is set up as a Monday-Friday list. Let me know what you all think. Should we start saturday, or Monday? Ideas for the best way to run this?

Prefer Monday, but I will begin reading Saturday