The Wondrous Exchange

This is the wondrous exchange made by his boundless goodness. Having become with us the Son of Man, he has made us with himself sons of God. By his own descent to the earth he has prepared our ascent to heaven. Having received our mortality, he has bestowed on us his immortality. Having undertaken our weakness, he has made us strong in his strength. Having submitted to our poverty, he has transferred to us his riches. Having taken upon himself the burden of unrighteousness with which we were oppressed, he has clothed us with his righteousness.

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Book IV, Section 2) (Kindle Edition).

A Kindle Edition of Calvin's Institutes

The Institutes of the Christian Religion (Kindle edition) by John Calvin.

This edition of Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion is from the translation made by Henry Beveridge in 1845 for the Calvin Translation Society. It also includes a Forward by John Murray, who was Professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary.

I wanted an electronic edition of the Institutes to use as a reference. I did look at some other Kindle editions of the Institutes and found them lacking the interactive table of contents necessary for a usable reference work. This Kindle edition more the adequately makes up that deficiency. I really appreciate the quick navigation and browsing capability, and am very satisfied with this purchase. At $ 0.99, the price was right.

Reforming the Reformed (Christianity Today) 

Calvinists, says one Calvinist, misunderstand some of their history and theology. A review of 'Ten Myths About Calvinism.' (Roger E. Olson,  posted 5/18/2011)

"We need fewer angular, sharp-elbowed Calvinists who glory in what distinguishes their stance from others," Stewart argues, "and a lot more supporters of the Reformed faith who rejoice in what they hold in common with others."

AMEN to that brother!!!!

Quotes from Calvin's Commentary on I Corinthians 11:23-29:
"The Lord's Supper"

...But that participation in the body of Christ, which, I affirm, is presented to us in the Supper, does not require a local presence, nor the descent of Christ, nor infinite extension, nor anything of that nature, for the Supper being a heavenly action, there is no absurdity in saying, that Christ, while remaining in heaven, is received by us. For as to his communicating himself to us, that is effected through the secret virtue of his Holy Spirit, which can not merely bring together, but join in one, things that are separated by distance of place, and far remote.

But, in order that we may be capable of this participation, we must rise heavenward. Here, therefore, faith must be our resource, when all the bodily senses have failed. When I speak of faith, I do not mean any sort of opinion, resting on human contrivances, as many, boasting of faith on all occasions, run grievously wild on this point. What then? You see bread — nothing more — but you learn that it is a symbol of Christ’s body. Do not doubt that the Lord accomplishes what his words intimate — that the body, which thou dost not at all behold, is given to thee, as a spiritual repast. It seems incredible, that we should be nourished by Christ’s flesh, which is at so great a distance from us. Let us bear in mind, that it is a secret and wonderful work of the Holy Spirit, which it were criminal to measure by the standard of our understanding. In the meantime, however, drive away gross imaginations, which would keep thee from looking beyond the bread. Leave to Christ the true nature of flesh, and do not, by a mistaken apprehension, extend his body over heaven and earth: do not divide him into different parts by thy fancies, and do not adore him in this place and that, according to thy carnal apprehension. Allow him to remain in his heavenly glory, and aspire thou thither, that he may thence communicate himself to thee. These few things will satisfy those that are sound and modest. As for the curious, I would have them look somewhere else for the means of satisfying their appetite...

...Do this in remembrance of me. Hence the Supper is a memorial,(μνημόσυνον) appointed as a help to our weakness; for if we were sufficiently mindful of the death of Christ, this help would be unnecessary. This is common to all sacraments, for they are helps to our weakness. What is the nature of that remembrance which Christ would have us cherish with regard to him, we shall hear presently. As to the inference, however, which some draw from this — that Christ is not present in the Supper, because a remembrance applies to something that is absent; the answer is easy — that Christ is absent from it in the sense in which the Supper is a commemoration. For Christ is not visibly present, and is not beheld with our eyes, as the symbols are which excite our remembrance by representing him. In short, in order that he may be present with us, he does not change his place, but communicates to us from heaven the virtue of his flesh, as though it were present...

...Until he come As we always need a help of this kind, so long as we are in this world, Paul intimates that this commemoration has been given us in charge, until Christ come to judgment. For as he is not present with us in a visible form, it is necessary for us to have some symbol of his presence, by which our minds may exercise themselves.

The reader is encouraged to check out the context of these quotes by reading Calvin's complete commentary on this section of I Corinthians 11:23-29 at the CCEL library.

Side Note Regarding Zwingli:

Thomas Davis points out that Zwingli was killed at a realitively young age (47). As such, it is not clear how Zwingli's theology may have changed and matured if he had lived as long as Luther (62) or Calvin (54).

"Rather then a bare and simple memorialism, it appears that in Zwingli, Paul's admonition to "discern the body" took Zwingli along the path of theological development, one cut short, perhaps, by his untimely death at the Battle of Kappel." This Is My Body: The Presence of Christ in Reformation Thought; (page 159),

Billy Goat Log: January 9, 2011

• The church we attend is inter-generational. We have a pretty good balance from youngsters on up through the grey haired seniors. So it is we see the normal ebb and flow of life in the life of the congregation; births, weddings, funerals, and etc. This past week was the occasion of several deaths in the Church family.
  
  We knew Sue was not long for this world. Cancer had taken its toll on her body, and chemo was no longer effective. My wife and I went to see her this past Monday. She knew we were there, but it was hard for her to talk, and the morphine to control pain made her drowsy. Friday we got word she was now with Jesus.
  
  I'm glad we got to know Sue and her husband over the past eight years we've been at our church. I'm glad she got to hold her grandchildren in her arms before leaving this world. I'm glad my last spoken words to her were, "Jesus still loves you..."
  
  RIP
  
  
• I had to get a new mobile phone. The old one totally died. It was about three years old so it didn't have many bells and whistles. The new one has the camera and some text and e-mail capabilities the old did not. Of course I had to check out all those fancy new features. It's like having a new toy.
  
  
• The Detroit Lions finished the regular NFL season with a string of wins. The roar is starting to come back... I remember the last time the Lions were in a playoff game many, many years ago. Maybe next year...
  
  
• Back in September I posted a study on The Lord's Table. I recently had opportunity to present a more developed and expanded version of that material in an adult Sunday school class. I want to do some further work on that and sometime in the future publish that revision here. It has been of particular interest to me to read John Calvin's Commentary on the 1 Corinthians 10 & 11 passages that deal with the Lord's Table.
  
  
• Over the Christmas break we took the oldest grandson to see The Voyage of the Dawntreader in 3D. If you are a stickler about a movie following closely to the book, you will find this version of the Dawntreader a disappointment. That said, I thought the movie did retain the basic essence of Lewis' original story, and the technical things such as graphics and etc, were well done. Somethings were left out that I would have like to have seen included. Some things were included that I thought could have been left out. Overall it was passasble though not outstanding; three stars out of five.
  
  

• "With nearly 230 million total speakers, Bangla (Bengali) is one of the most spoken languages, ranking sixth in the world. The predominent religion among the Bangla people is Islam 89.5%, followed by Hindu 9.6%, and "other" 0.9% (2004, CIA Factbook). That less then 1% "other" includes Christianity."
  
  Bangla Ministries Worldwide (Facebook)
  Bangla Ministries Worldwide
  

  
  
  

What did John Calvin actually say? (Part 2)

I had also published my previous post "John Calvin on John 3:16" to my Facebook page and got several responses that I believe are worthy of mentioning and commenting on here.

The response I want to start with is from a long time friend who's intellect and Biblical understanding I respect. He says,

"I wonder if you may have intended to write "all men without distinction" instead of "all men without exception."

I think that "all men without distinction," that is people without racial, social, sexual distinctions, underscores the kind of universality John 3:16 is after. It seems to me that this is necessary for rightly understanding 1 John 2:2 also."

This was my response:

How do you understand Calvin's words, "And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers..."?

I see two questions here. 1) Is the primary focus of John 3:16 the free offer of the Gospel, or the scope and purpose of the atonement? 2) The other question is how do we understand John's use of "whosoever" and "world".

I understand from the quotes cited, that Calvin's answer to the first question is "the free offer of the gospel". At that point finding the meaning of "whosoever" and "world" becomes a question of usage and context apart from trying to fit the passage into a predetermined view of the scope and purpose of the atonement. And yes, the context of the Jewish religious nationalism of Nicodemus is an important part of understanding that. The meaning you cited may be what Calvin intended in his use of universal language in his John 3:16 comments, and I agree he clearly has that meaning in view in his comments on I John 2:2.

What I am struck by is how Calvin views both John 3:16 and the II Peter 3:9 passage in terms of the free offer of the Gospel in distinction from, in Calvin's own words on II Peter 3:9, "the hidden purpose of God." If I may, I fault both Armenians and Calvinists for turning those passages into statements on the purpose and scope of the atonement in such a way that the free offer of the Gospel ends up taking a backseat...

And in answer to your question, in viewing those passages as primarily focused on the free offer of the gospel, I can live with either "all men without distinction" or "all men without exception" while acknowledging context does give favor to the first.

Another friend drew my attention to Calvin's comments on Matthew 20:28, 26:28, and Romans 5:18. It is this excerpt from Calvin's comments on Romans 5:18 I found most striking:

He does not say the righteousness — δικαιοσύνην, but the justification — δικαίωμα, of Christ, in order to remind us that he was not as an individual just for himself, but that the righteousness with which he was endued reached farther, in order that, by conferring this gift, he might enrich the faithful. 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)

My purpose in pointing out what John Calvin has written regarding these different passages of Scripture is to highlight what he actually said in distinction from what sometimes his friends as well as his foes assume he said. Agree with Calvin or not, let us at least be accurate and honest about what he really did say. Truth and love demands we do so.

Peace...

~ The Billy Goat ~

John Calvin on John 3:16

What did Calvin actually say?

16. For God so loved the world. Christ opens up the first cause, and, as it were, the source of our salvation, and he does so, that no doubt may remain; for our minds cannot find calm repose, until we arrive at the unmerited love of God. As the whole matter of our salvation must not be sought any where else than in Christ, so we must see whence Christ came to us, and why he was offered to be our Savior. Both points are distinctly stated to us: namely, that faith in Christ brings life to all, and that Christ brought life, because the Heavenly Father loves the human race, and wishes that they should not perish. And this order ought to be carefully observed; for such is the wicked ambition which belongs to our nature, that when the question relates to the origin of our salvation, we quickly form diabolical imaginations about our own merits. Accordingly, we imagine that God is reconciled to us, because he has reckoned us worthy that he should look upon us. But Scripture everywhere extols his pure and unmingled mercy, which sets aside all merits.

And the words of Christ mean nothing else, when he declares the cause to be in the love of God. For if we wish to ascend higher, the Spirit shuts the door by the mouth of Paul, when he informs us that this love was founded on the purpose of his will, (Ephesians 1:5.) And, indeed, it is very evident that Christ spoke in this manner, in order to draw away men from the contemplation of themselves to look at the mercy of God alone. Nor does he say that God was moved to deliver us, because he perceived in us something that was worthy of so excellent a blessing, but ascribes the glory of our deliverance entirely to his love. And this is still more clear from what follows; for he adds, that God gave his Son to men, that they may not perish. Hence it follows that, until Christ bestow his aid in rescuing the lost, all are destined to eternal destruction. This is also demonstrated by Paul from a consideration of the time; for he loved us while we were still enemies by sin, (Romans 5:8, 10.)

And, indeed, where sin reigns, we shall find nothing but the wrath of God, which draws death along with it. It is mercy, therefore, that reconciles us to God, that he may likewise restore us to life.

This mode of expression, however, may appear to be at variance with many passages of Scripture, which lay in Christ the first foundation of the love of God to us, and show that out of him we are hated by God. But we ought to remember — what I have already stated — that the secret love with which the Heavenly Father loved us in himself is higher than all other causes; but that the grace which he wishes to be made known to us, and by which we are excited to the hope of salvation, commences with the reconciliation which was procured through Christ. For since he necessarily hates sin, how shall we believe that we are loved by him, until atonement has been made for those sins on account of which he is justly offended at us? Thus, the love of Christ must intervene for the purpose of reconciling God to us, before we have any experience of his fatherly kindness. But as we are first informed that God, because he loved us, gave his Son to die for us, so it is immediately added, that it is Christ alone on whom, strictly speaking, faith ought to look.

He gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him may not perish. This, he says, is the proper look of faith, to be fixed on Christ, in whom it beholds the breast of God filled with love: this is a firm and enduring support, to rely on the death of Christ as the only pledge of that love. The word only-begotten is emphatic, (ἐμφατικὸν) to magnify the fervor of the love of God towards us. For as men are not easily convinced that God loves them, in order to remove all doubt, he has expressly stated that we are so very dear to God that, on our account, he did not even spare his only-begotten Son. Since, therefore, God has most abundantly testified his love towards us, whoever is not satisfied with this testimony, and still remains in doubt, offers a high insult to Christ, as if he had been an ordinary man given up at random to death. But we ought rather to consider that, in proportion to the estimation in which God holds his only-begotten Son, so much the more precious did our salvation appear to him, for the ransom of which he chose that his only-begotten Son should die. To this name Christ has a right, because he is by nature the only Son of God; and he communicates this honor to us by adoption, when we are engrafted into his body.

That whosoever believeth on him may not perish. It is a remarkable commendation of faith, that it frees us from everlasting destruction. For he intended expressly to state that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favor of God, yet he shows himself to be reconciled to the whole world, when he invites all men without exception to the faith of Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.

Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all. For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith. Here, too, is displayed a wonderful effect of faith; for by it we receive Christ such as he is given to us by the Father — that is, as having freed us from the condemnation of eternal death, and made us heirs of eternal life, because, by the sacrifice of his death, he has atoned for our sins, that nothing may prevent God from acknowledging us as his sons. Since, therefore, faith embraces Christ, with the efficacy of his death and the fruit of his resurrection, we need not wonder if by it we obtain likewise the life of Christ.

Still it is not yet very evident why and how faith bestows life upon us. Is it because Christ renews us by his Spirit, that the righteousness of God may live and be vigorous in us; or is it because, having been cleansed by his blood, we are accounted righteous before God by a free pardon? It is indeed certain, that these two things are always joined together; but as the certainty of salvation is the subject now in hand, we ought chiefly to hold by this reason, that we live, because God loves us freely by not imputing to us our sins. For this reason sacrifice is expressly mentioned, by which, together with sins, the curse and death are destroyed. I have already explained the object of these two clauses, which is, to inform us that in Christ we regain the possession of life, of which we are destitute in ourselves; for in this wretched condition of mankind, redemption, in the order of time, goes before salvation.

I included the whole of Calvin's comments on John 3:16 to provide context to the parts I underlined in the above quote. It's pretty clear in these words, that Calvin viewed John 3:16 as a declaration of the free and indiscriminate offer of the Gospel to all men, and that in contrast to understanding John 3:16 in terms of the scope of the atonement; limited vs. unlimited. In the context of the free offer of the Gospel, Calvin affirms that the term world (kosmos) is a reference to "all men without exception".

This same attention to context is found in Calvin's comments on I John 2:2. Calvin affirms the statement that in the atonement "Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world but effectively only for the elect", but then says that though a true statement, that statement doesn't fit the I John 2:2 passage. Instead, according to Calvin, John is using the term "world" in the context of "all who would believe" and those who were "scattered through various regions of the earth."

"Here a question may be raised, how have the sins of the whole world been expiated?... They.. have said that Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect. This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools. Though then I allow that what has been said is true, yet I deny that it is suitable to this passage; for the design of John was no other than to make this benefit common to the whole Church. Then under the word all or whole, he does not include the reprobate, but designates those who should believe as well as those who were then scattered through various parts of the world..."

Again in his comments on II Peter 3:9, Calvin calls us to context:

"9. "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."...

...Not willing that any should perish. So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost. But the order is to be noticed, that God is ready to receive all to repentance, so that none may perish; for in these words the way and manner of obtaining salvation is pointed out. Every one of us, therefore, who is desirous of salvation, must learn to enter in by this way.

But it may be asked, If God wishes none to perish, why is it that so many do perish? To this my answer is, that no mention is here made of the hidden purpose of God, according to which the reprobate are doomed to their own ruin, but only of his will as made known to us in the gospel. For God there stretches forth his hand without a difference to all, but lays hold only of those, to lead them to himself, whom he has chosen before the foundation of the world. (A similar view was taken by Estius, Piscator, and Beza. — Ed.)"

Once again Calvin views a "universalist" passage in terms of the free offer of the Gospel, and does not try to twist and contort the passage into an affirmation of limited atonement. How often have we seen or heard or read Calvinist or Reformed brethern who try to contort or twist John 3:16 or II Peter 3:9 to make limited atonement the main purpose and teaching of those passages?

For myself, I prefer Calvin's exegesis over theirs.

Solo Deo gloria!

~ The Billy Goat ~

References:

Above quotations copied from:

• Commentary on John - Volume 1; John Calvin; (Christian Classics Ethereal Library)
  
• Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles: II Peter; John Calvin; (Christian Classics Ethereal Library)
  
• Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles: I JohnJohn Calvin; (Christian Classics Ethereal Library)
  

The above sources were compared to:

Calvin's New Testement Commentaries (Erdmans; 1961)

• "The Gospel According to St. John: Part One 1 - 10"; translated by T.H.L. Parker
  
• "The Gospel According to St. John: Part Two 11 - 21 & The First Epistle of John"; translated by T.H.L. Parker
  
• "Hebrews and I and II Peter"; translated by W.B. Johnston

Calvin on External Discipline and Ceremonies

[I separated and underlined the part of this quote I wanted to focus on. I'm including all of section 30 and 31 so that part can be seen in the context in which Calvin wrote it. ~ The Billy Goat ~]

From: Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book Four, Chapter 10

30. But as there is here a danger, on the one hand, lest false bishops should thence derive a pretext for their impious and tyrannical laws, and, on the other, lest some, too apt to take alarm, should, from fear of the above evils, leave no place for laws, however holy, it may here be proper to declare, that I approve of those human constitutions only which are founded on the authority of God, and derived from Scripture, and are therefore altogether divine. Let us take, for example, the bending of the knee which is made in public prayer. It is asked, whether this is a human tradition, which any one is at liberty to repudiate or neglect? I say, that it is human, and that at the same time it is divine. It is of God, inasmuch as it is a part of that decency, the care and observance of which is recommended by the apostle; and it is of men, inasmuch as it specially determines what was indicated in general, rather than expounded. From this one example, we may judge what is to be thought of the whole class—viz. that the whole sum of righteousness, and all the parts of divine worship, and everything necessary to salvation, the Lord has faithfully comprehended, and clearly unfolded, in his sacred oracles, so that in them he alone is the only Master to be heard.

But as in external discipline and ceremonies, he has not been pleased to prescribe every particular that we ought to observe (he foresaw that this depended on the nature of the times, and that one form would not suit all ages), in them we must have recourse to the general rules which he has given, employing them to test whatever the necessity of the Church may require to be enjoined for order and decency. Lastly, as he has not delivered any express command, because things of this nature are not necessary to salvation, and, for the edification of the Church, should be accommodated to the varying circumstances of each age and nation, it will be proper, as the interest of the Church may require, to change and abrogate the old, as well as to introduce new forms. I confess, indeed, that we are not to innovate rashly or incessantly, or for trivial causes. Charity is the best judge of what tends to hurt or to edify: if we allow her to be guide, all things will be safe.

31. Things which have been appointed according to this rule, it is the duty of the Christian people to observe with a free conscience indeed, and without superstition, but also with a pious and ready inclination to obey. They are not to hold them in contempt, nor pass them by with careless indifference, far less openly to violate them in pride and contumacy. You will ask, What liberty of conscience will there be in such cautious observances? Nay, this liberty will admirably appear when we shall hold that these are not fixed and perpetual obligations to which we are astricted, but external rudiments for human infirmity, which, though we do not all need, we, however, all use, because we are bound to cherish mutual charity towards each other. This we may recognise in the examples given above. What? Is religion placed in a woman’s bonnet, so that it is unlawful for her to go out with her head uncovered? Is her silence fixed by a decree which cannot be violated without the greatest wickedness? Is there any mystery in bending the knee, or in burying a dead body, which cannot be omitted without a crime? By no means. For should a woman require to make such haste in assisting a neighbour that she has not time to cover her head, she sins not in running out with her head uncovered. And there are some occasions on which it is not less seasonable for her to speak than on others to be silent. Nothing, moreover, forbids him who, from disease, cannot bend his knees, to pray standing. In fine, it is better to bury a dead man quickly, than from want of grave-clothes, or the absence of those who should attend the funeral, to wait till it rot away unburied. Nevertheless, in those matters the custom and institutions 2437of the country, in short, humanity and the rules of modesty itself, declare what is to be done or avoided. Here, if any error is committed through imprudence or forgetfulness, no crime is perpetrated; but if this is done from contempt, such contumacy must be disapproved. In like manner, it is of no consequence what the days and hours are, what the nature of the edifices, and what psalms are sung on each day. But it is proper that there should be certain days and stated hours, and a place fit for receiving all, if any regard is had to the preservation of peace. For what a seed-bed of quarrels will confusion in such matters be, if every one is allowed at pleasure to alter what pertains to common order? All will not be satisfied with the same course if matters, placed as it were on debatable ground, are left to the determination of individuals. But if any one here becomes clamorous, and would be wiser than he ought, let him consider how he will approve his moroseness to the Lord. Paul’s answer ought to satisfy us, “If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.”