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

True Faith

Question 21. What is true faith?

Answer: True faith is not only a certain knowledge, whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in his word, but also an assured confidence, which the Holy Spirit works by the gospel in my heart; that not only to others, but to me also, remission of sin, everlasting righteousness and salvation, are freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ's merits.

(The Heidelberg Catechism )

All of Grace From Start to Finish

"There is nothing in us or done by us, at any stage of our earthly development, because of which we are acceptable to God. We must always be accepted for Christ’s sake, or we cannot ever be accepted at all. This is not true of us only “when we believe.” It is just as true after we have believed. It will continue to be true as long as we live. Our need of Christ does not cease with our believing; nor does the nature of our relation to Him or to God through Him ever alter, no matter what our attainments in Christian graces or our achievements in Christian behavior may be. It is always on His “blood and righteousness” alone that we can rest. There is never anything that we are or have or do that can take His place, or that can take a place along with Him. We are always unworthy, and all that we have or do of good is always of pure grace."

(The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, 10 vols. (1991), vol. 7, p. 113; as cited by Steve in a post at The Gate)

A Reflection on the Resurrection

"Each year at Easter I get to preach on the Resurrection. In my sermon, I always say to my skeptical, secular friends that even if they can't believe in the resurrection, they should want it to be true. Most of them care deeply about justice for the poor,alleviating hunger and disease, and caring for the environment. Yet many of them believe that the material world was caused by accident and that the world and everything in it will eventually simply burn up in the death of the sun. They find it discouraging that so few people care about justice without realizing that their own worldview undermines any motivation to make the world a better place. Why sacrifice for the needs of others if in the end nothing we do will make any difference? If the resurrection of Jesus happened, however, that means there's infinite hope and reason to pour ourselves out for the needs of the world..."

(Timothy Keller, "The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism", page 220)

A New Kind of Christianity or an Old Kind of Heresey?

(Reviews of Brian McLaren's A New Kind of Christianity.)

Dr. Mike Wittmer did an extended critical review of Brian McClaren's A New Kind of Christianity. Here are links to those posts:

• A New Kind of Christianity, Introduction
  
• A New Kind of Christianity, Question 1
  
• A New Kind of Christianity, Question 2
  
• A New Kind of Christianity, Interlude
  
• A New Kind of Christianity, Question 3
  
• A New Kind of Christianity, Question 4
  
• A New Kind of Christianity, Question 5, Part 1
  
• A New Kind of Christianity, Question 5, Part 2
  
• A New Kind of Christianity, Question 6
  
• A New Kind of Christianity, Question 7
  
• A New Kind of Christianity, Questions 8-9
  
• A New Kind of Christianity, Question 10
  
  

A New Kind of Christianity: Review by Tim Challies

Why Brian McLaren’s New Book is Good for the Emerging Church
by Trevin Wax

Kevin DeYoung's two part review:
Christianity and McLarenism (1)
Christianity and McLarenism (2)

Review: Brian McLaren's 'A New Kind of Christianity'
Scot McKnight at Christianity Today

~ The Billy Goat ~

Remembering Mickey Mantle's Big Hit

Early September 1960, it was the summer between 5th and 6th grade. That day all us Little League ball players from our small rural Southern Michigan town packed into the school bus and were off to Tiger Stadium in Detroit to watch our favorite Detroit Tigers take on those NY Yankees.

That small rural town was several hours from Detroit, and as such, it was a rare treat for any of us to see a Major league baseball game first hand. We listened to the Tiger games over the radio with George Kell and Ernie Harwell calling the games. Those were the years when Al Kaline, Rocky Colavito, Norm Cash, Jake Wood, and Jim Bunning, among others were our heros.

When we got to the stadium we were seated out in the center field section of the stands. The Yankees were out warming up, and there he was right in front of us; Mickey Mantle! And over in right field was Roger Maris!

We started yelling "Hey Mickey!"... He turned and waved. He caught a ball, (it must have come from Yogi Berra in left?). We called out to him to throw the ball up to us. He made a motion like he was going to do just that but that ball returned to his glove and Mickey returned to his warmup. We were in awe. What a guy!

The game started. In the course of the game both Mantle and Maris hit home runs. I don't rememeber what inning it was when Mickey was at bat and hit that 2nd (as I rememeber) home run. I can still hear in my mind the crack of his bat hitting that pitch. We heard that crack all the way out in the center field stands. We watched the ball rise as it headed out towards right field. It keep going up and up and up. It was over the outfield fence and still going up. It cleared the stands and even then was still going up.

Was it going to hit the wall? No!!!

It cleared the wall and was out of the stadium! Mickey Mantle had just hit a home run out of Tiger Stadium, and from our center field seats we had the perfect view of it all the way up and out!

As I recall, the Yankees won the game and afterwards we climbed into the school bus and headed back to our small rural Michigan community. The memory of Mickey interacting with us during the warmups; the memory of that "out of the stadium" home run remain in my memory to this day. We had seen someone who was to us, one of baseball's larger then life heros. And even though most of us remained loyal Tiger fans, Mickey Mantle had a special place in our hearts and memories.

I am well aware that in latter years, after his retirement from baseball, Mantle had some struggles and failures in his personal life. For myself, those things do not take away from who he was as a major league baseball player, nor from what his presence met for the game. For us who as youngsters saw him play the game, Mickey Mantle was and remains a great baseball player and hero.

RIP

Official Mickey Mantle Website

(Up to 1961, the Detroit stadium had been known as Brigg's Stadium. 1961 was the first year it went by the new name of Tiger Stadium.)

Yes Virginia, there really was a holocaust.

I have been watching Band of Brothers. Tonight I watched the segment titled "Why We Fight". This is the episode where Easy Company comes across a concentration camp near a town in Germany. The scenes are pretty graphic, tragic, and heart wrenching. It was right that the German civilians from the town were made to clean up the camp; lifting the dead bodies, facing and dealing with the reality of what their Nazi leaders had done. The occupants intered in that concentration camp had been put there not because they were criminals, but because they were Jews. That one fact alone was the sole reason for the Nazi's subjecting them to the atrocities they had endured and under which so many of them had been killed or died.

I remember as a young lad in elementary school in the late 1950's, seeing some of the grainy pictures of the concentration camps on our black and white TV set. Back then there was no question that the holocaust had happened. The evidence, hardly 10 to 15 years after the end of the war, was over whelming. And there was also the continuing hunt for the war criminals that had perpetuated those atrocities.

An example of the information that was and is available is Alfred Hitchcock's Documentary on the Holocaust. Movies such as Schindler's List and The Courageous Heart of Irena Sendler as well as others are based on historical documented events.

To deny the holocaust is to deny historical truth; it is to bear false witness regarding the nature and criminal activities of the 3rd Reich. We must never forget. Yes, there were other holocausts in the 20th Century. They should not be forgotten either. But if we forget this holocaust, I believe those others probably will very quickly be forgotten too.

~ The Billy Goat ~

Christian Joy

"This spiritual joy consists in a delightful motion of the soul, generated by the Holy Spirit in the heart of believers, whereby He convinces them of the felicity of their state, causes them to enjoy the benefits of the covenant of grace, and assures them of their future felicity."

( Wilhelmus a Brakel as quoted by Anthony T. Selvaggio.)

Joylessness in Reformed Chritianity

"I wasn't born and raised in the Reformed church. In other words, I am a Reformed immigrant. Like many people in the Reformed church today, I migrated out of broad based evangelicalism and non-denominationalism. Many of my friends, both ministers and laypeople, have had similar immigration experiences.

Recently, at the funeral of my father-in-law, I had the opportunity to get reacquainted with many of my Reformed immigrant friends. Much to my surprise, I found myself having a very similar conversation with this group. They shared with me that they felt like something was missing in their Reformed experience. While they were all satisfied with the doctrine, worship and government of the church they spoke of a missing intangible element. They had trouble articulating the exact nature of this missing element. I suggested a variety of terms to give it a name and the one that seemed to come closest was "joy." These immigrants perceived the Reformed church to be suffering from a deficiency of spiritual joy."

These conversations got me thinking. I did my own assessment of my Reformed experience and, I must admit, I had to agree that "joyful" was not one of the first adjectives that came to my mind to describe it. Then I began to contemplate why the Reformed church seems to be lacking in the joy department. My contemplation yielded two main reasons.

(The Joy of the Reformed by Anthony Selvaggio December 2009.)

If it was appropriate, I'd copy the entirety of Mr. Selvaggio's article. He goes on to discuss two reasons he sees for the lack of joy in the Reformed church; the migration of Evangelical malcontents into the Reformed movement, and "...perpetually circling the theological wagons." Please also note Selvaggio's evaluation comes from his position within the Reformed movement. This is coming from one of the Reformed's own.

Selvaggio proposes a remedy, and in so far as it goes, I believe the proposed remedy has merit as it does, in its own way, call for a focus on the promises of God.

That said, what was noticeable in my mind was his lack of discussion of joy as the fruit of the Spirit, and in fact, among the very first of the fruit of the Spirit as listed by Paul in Galations 5:22. This is where my own concern for the Reformed church comes to focus.

I spent a little over 25 years in a Reformed (Baptist) church. About 7 years ago we left that church and started attending a more mainstream Evangelical Baptist church. It is on the basis of that experience that I totally understand Mr. Selvaggio's statements, "...they felt like something was missing in their Reformed experience." and "These immigrants perceived the Reformed church to be suffering from a deficiency of spiritual joy."

One of the very first things we noticed about our new church, in contrast to the Reformed church we had left, was the much greater and obvious level of honest, genuine, authentic Christian joy expressed by the people and manifest in the life of the congregation corporately.

This raised a question in my mind. If, as the Bible says, joy is a fruit of the Spirit, what does that say for the joyless Reformed church? A tree is known by its fruit. If my Reformed theology and the Reformed preaching from the pulpit of the Reformed church is not producing the fruit of the Spirit in my life, then something is not right and we need to do some VERY deep soul searching.

This becomes even more critical and vital when I look at raising my children in such a church. It was that very concern that 7 years ago drove me from the Reformed church back into the Evangelical mainstream. (I'm still a Calvinist, but I no longer call myself Reformed.) If my children were to know true Chrisitan joy, the joy that is the fruit of the Spirit, then they need to be raised in a church and thological climate that clearly demnstrates that joy in the life of individual believers and in the corporate life of the congregation, and that along with all the other fruit of the Spirit as well.

I beleive there are probably some Reformed churches out there somewhere who have managed by the grace of God to hold and nuance their theology in a way that produces a noticable level of genuine Christian joy. That said, in a sizable part of the Reformed movement there is the need to do some VERY DEEP soul seaarching at this point.

Kyrie eleison...