Wolfgang Musculus

Calvin’s esteem of Musculus:

LETTER 191 TO WOLFGANG MUSCULUS
ANXIETY REGARDING THE CHURCHES OF
GERMANY —
ADVICE TO MUSCULUS. GENEVA,
21st April 1547.

…Adieu, most upright brother, and one dear to me from the bottom of my heart, as also your fellow-ministers, all of whom you will very affectionately salute in my name. May the Lord Jesus be present with you, guide you by his Spirit, and bless your holy labors. You will also convey to your family my best greeting. — Yours, John Calvin

LETTER 255 TO WOLFGANG MUSCULUS
PROHIBITION OF THE VAUDOIS CONFERENCES — REMONSTRANCES ON THE INTOLERANCE OF THE BERNESE MINISTERS TOWARDS THOSE OF FRANCE.
GENEVA, 28th Nov. 1549.

…From my confidence in your friendship, I expostulate the more freely with you and my friend Haller. For I am persuaded that some things which trouble me are displeasing to you also. But however that may be, I hope you will put a just and friendly interpretation on these complaints. Adieu, most excellent and accomplished man, and my revered brother in the Lord. May God keep you and your family, and be ever present with you and guide you! — Yours, John Calvin.

Brief Biography:

Wolfgang Musculus, born in a small town of Lorraine, and of an obscure family, raised himself by his talents, and the varied range of his accomplishments, to a place among the most distinguished men of his time. He cultivated with success music, poetry, and theology; was converted to the gospel in a convent by the perusal of the writings of Luther; gained the friendship of Capito and Bucer, and quitted Strasbourg in 1531, with a view to the discharge of the functions of the ministry in the church of Augsbourg. Driven from that city in 1548, by the proclamation of the Interim, he withdrew at first to Zurich, and afterwards to Berne, where he died in 1563. His numerous manuscripts, as well as those of Abraham Musculus his son, are reserved in the Library of Zoffingue. — Melch. Adam, Vitoe Theol. Germ., page 367.

Richard Muller:

Wolfgang Musculus (1497-1663); studied in the Benedictine monastery near Lixheim; advocated reformed after reading early tracts by Luther and fled the monastery in 1518. From 1529 to 1531 he studied at Strasbourg and was a preacher in Augsburg from 1531 to 1548. Forced out of Germany by the Augsburg Interim (1548) he went to Switzerland and was appointed professor of theology in Bern (1549), a post he held until his death. Major dogmatic work: loci communes sacrae theologiae (1560). Richard Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 1:41 (first edition).

Augustine Marlorate:

For more material from Musculus, see the Augustine Marlorate file.

Sins of the world:

Secondary source:

1)He has born the sins of all men, if we consider his sacrifice according to the virtue of it in itself, and think that no man is excluded from the grace but he that refuses it. “So God loved he world, that he gave his only begotten Son, to the end that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life;” John 3:16. But if we respect those which do so believe and are saved; so he has born only the sins of many. Wolfgang Musculus, Comment, in Esaiam. [liii.5.], cited by Joseph Hall, “Via Media: The Way of Peace,” in The Works of the Right Reverent Joseph Hall, (New York, Ames press, 1969), 9:510.

Primary source:

1) We have spoken in the places before, of the grace of God, of the redemption of mankind, appointed to us from everlasting in Christ, and perfected these latter times, and also of the incarnation of the word: now we must proceed by degree to his dispensation. And I do not speak of the dispensation whereby Christ in his flesh executed the will of his Father in offering himself for us but of the same whereby salvation is gotten & communicated unto the world, that we may be made partakers of it. The grace of God is ready and set forth open to all the whole world, even as the benefit of the sun casting our heat & brightness everywhere, is read unto all. But it is necessary, that the same which is so ready & at hand for all men, be profitably received. To this purpose serves the dispensation of the purchased & prepared salvation. Two things do belong unto a redeemer. The one is to redeem: the other, is to dispense or bestow the grace of this redemption. Without this dispensation a man cannot attain unto the end & prick of the appointed redemption. Nor it is not a perfect redemption, unless the fruit of it do stretch unto them which be redeemed, & so take his effect. Indeed the grace of itself is a perfect, & the work of redemption perfect, which was made absolute & consummate by one oblation upon the cross: but for as much as the same perfection whereby the justice of God is satisfied for the sins of the whole world, is appointed unto the fruit of our salvation, it is rightly deemed imperfect, unless, it do reach unto this appointed end, although it be never so full & consummate, in itself. Wherefore the very necessity of the persevering & fulfilling of our redemption, & the counsel & purpose of God’s grace, did not require this only, that he should be offered as an expiatory, perfect & sufficient host for our sins, but that the grace of the redemption gotten by this oblation, should be communicated amongst wretched sinners, & obtain his effect by virtue of the dispensation. Wolfgangus Musculus, Common Places of Christian Religion, trans., by Iohn Merton (London: Imprinted by Henry Bynneman, 1578), 331.

2) The Schoolmen do call Satisfaction the work of Penance, enjoined by the Priest after the Auricular confession. And here they make much ado, that the satisfaction on be neither less nor lighter than countervailing the weight of the sin. This doctrine of satisfaction does exceedingly darken the clearness of the grace of Christ: it does make men’s conscience either falsely assured, when they suppose that they have satisfied: either it does piteously torment them, when they cannot tell by what time they have satisfied in the sight of God for one sin: much less all their sins. Besides that it has opened not one gap but all doors, windows, arches, &c., to the Popes market, to gain pagan pardons; and for the traffic of Priests masses, to deliver souls out of Purgatory. Wherefore all godly do worthy abhor it. The doctrine of the Gospel does denounce unto us pardon of our sins, by the blood of Christ, by the shedding whereof, there is satisfaction made, not only for ours, but for the sins also of the whole world. Wolfgangus Musculus, Common Places of Christian Religion, trans., by Iohn Merton (London: Imprinted by Henry Bynneman, 1578), 528-529.

Read the rest of this entry »

“A certain creditor,” it says, “had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty” [St. Luke 7:41]. 24. Who are those two debtors if not the two peoples, the one from the Jews, the other from the Gentiles, beholden to the Creditor of the heavenly treasure? It says, “The one owed five hundred pence, the other fifty” [St. Luke 7:41]. Extraordinary is that penny on which the King’s image is written, which bears the imprint of the Emperor [cf. St. Mark 12:15-16]. To this Creditor we owe not material wealth, but assays of merits, accounts of virtues, the worth of which is measured by the weight of seriousness, the likeness of righteousness, the sound of confession. Woe is me if I do not have what I have received, truly, because only with difficulty can anyone pay off the whole debt to this Creditor; woe is me if I do not ask, “Remit my debt.” For the Lord would not have taught us so to pray that we ask for our sins to be forgiven [cf. St. Matthew 6:12] if He had not known that some would only with difficulty be worthy debtors [cf. St. Luke 11:4]. 25. But which is the people which owes more if not we by whom more is believed? God’s words were believed by them [cf. Romans 3:2], but His Virgin Birth by us. Ye have the talent [cf. St. Matthew 25:15], the Virgin Birth; ye have the hundredfold fruit of faith [cf. St. Matthew 13:8]. Emmanuel was believed, God with us [cf. St. Matthew 1:23]; the Cross, the Death, the Resurrection of the Lord were believed. Although Christ suffered for all, yet He suffered for us particularly, because He suffered for the Church. Therefore, there is no doubt that he who has received more, owes more [cf. St. Luke 12:48]. And according to me, perhaps he who owed more offended more, but through the Lord’s mercy, the case is changed, so that he who owed more loves more, if he nevertheless attains Grace. For he who gives it back possesses Grace, and he who possesses it repays, insofar as he possesses, for the possession consists in the repayment and the repayment in the possession. 26. And, therefore, since there is nothing which we can worthily repay to God–for what may we repay for the harm to the Flesh He assumed, what for the blows, what for the Cross, the Death, and the Burial? Woe is me if I have not loved! I dare to say that Peter did not repay and thereby loved the more; Paul did not repay–he, indeed, repaid death for death, but did not repay other debts, because he owed much. I hear himself saying, because he did not repay, “Who hath given to Him first, that he might be recompensed again?” [Romans 11:35]. Even if we were to repay cross for Cross, death for Death, do we repay that we possess all things from Him, and by Him, and in Him [cf. Romans 11:36]? Therefore, let us repay love for our debt, charity for the gift, grace for wealth; for he to whom more is given loves more [cf. St. Luke 7:42-43].”

Saint Ambrose of Milan, Exposition of the Holy Gospel According to Saint Luke, trans. Theodosia Tomkinson (Etna: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1998), 201-202.

Credit to Tony and Curt Daniel.

Introductory comments:

1) The key here is to realize that for Charles Hodge, R.L. Dabney and W.G.T. Shedd, kosmos was not reducible to the elect, but denoted mankind at large. They expressly distanced themselves from the idea that kosmos means elect, or all kinds of elect. Hodge notes Augustinians have no need to wrest the Scriptures in that way. And so for Hodge, it is still true that it was for the sins of the world for which Christ suffered or offered an expiation.

2) With Hodge, there are essentially three questions to be asked with reference to the nature and extent of the death of Christ:

I) Q. For whom did Christ engage as surety in order to effectually save?
A. The elect alone.

II) Q. For whom did Christ die?
A. For all men generally, but for the elect especially.

III) Q. For whose sins did Christ suffer and bear punishment?
A. Christ suffered and bore the punishment for the sins due to every man, that is all men, even the sins of the whole world.

The reader should consider these three questions while reading the following material from Charles Hodge.

3) For Hodge, it appears that when the expiation is considered in reference to persons, he prefers to limit its “proper” intent and design. In doing so, Hodge will even limit the impetration of Christ to those whom it is effectually applied. However, when considering the expiation in reference to imputed sin, Hodge wants to speak in terms of the law’s charge against the categories of sin. The condemnation due to one man was the same condemnation due to the next, and the next, and so on indefinitely. Therefore, the satisfaction performed by Christ being sufficient for the first man, is necessarily sufficient for the second man, for the third man, and so on indefinitely for all men. As Hodge says, Christ suffered the condemnation of the law under which all men lay. And in this way, for Hodge, the expiation is a real and actual atoning sacrifice and satisfaction for the sins of the world. Hodge expressly repudiates the idea that only a fixed amount of sin from a fixed amount of sinners was imputed to Christ. For if that were the case, Hodge would have to concede that 1) had God elected more, the nature of the expiation would have changed, and 2) there can be no commonality with Lutheranism on the nature of the expiation. The effect of this is that we have another version of limited atonement which probably has its source in Jonathan Edwards and other New England theologians. It also probably lies at the back of the distinction made by both R.L. Dabney and W.G.T Shedd, that the expiation is unlimited, while the redemption is limited.

4) This file should not be considered as exhaustive of Hodge’s comments on these issues. I have chosen to include only the most relevant according to my judgement. However, in doing so, I have sought to be true to Hodge’s intent and the context of these quotations.

Hodge’s Explanatory statements:

Removal of legal obstacles

1) In assuming this ground, he is guilty of the same one-sidedness, the same contracted view, which he exhibits in his doctrine concerning the nature of the atonement. It is conceded that the work of Christ does lay the foundation for the offer of salvation to all men. Dr. Beman hence concludes that this was its only end; that it merely opens the way for the general offer of pardon. His theory is designed to account for one fact, and leaves all the other revealed facts out of view, and unexplained. The Bible teaches, however, a great deal more in relation to this subject, than that one fact. It teaches, 1. That Christ came in execution of a purpose; that he suffered, as Dr. Beman expresses it, by covenant, and ratified that covenant with his own blood. 2. That his mission was the result and expression of the highest conceivable love. 3. That it not merely removes obstacles out of the way, but actually secures the salvation of his people. 4. That it lays the foundation for a free, full, and unrestrained offer of salvation to all men. 5. That it renders just the condemnation of those who reject him as their Saviour ; that rejection being righteously the special ground of their condemnation. Charles Hodge, “Beman on the Atonement,” Essays and Reviews, (New York, Robert Carter & Brothers, 1857), 175.

2) Dr. Beman’s theory, therefore, which denies that the death of Christ had a special reference to his own people, is inconsistent with the plainly revealed facts : 1. That he died in execution of a covenant in which his people were promised to him as his reward, to secure which reward is declared to be his specific and immediate design in laying down his life. 2. That the motive which led to the gift of the Son, and of the Son in dying, was not general benevolence, but the highest conceivable love, love for his sheep and for his friends. 3. That the design of his death was not simply to remove obstacles out of the way of mercy, but actually to secure the salvation of those given to him by the Father ; and that it does in fact secure for them the gift of the Holy Ghost, and consequently justification and eternal life…

These suppositions are made simply to show that, according to our doctrine, the reason why any man perishes is not that there is no righteousness provided suitable and adequate to his case, or that it is not freely offered to all that hear the gospel, but simply because he wilfully rejects the proffered salvation. Our doctrine, therefore, provides for the universal offer of the gospel, and for the righteous condemnation of unbelievers, as thoroughly as Dr. Beman’s. It opens the door for mercy, as far as legal obstructions are concerned, as fully as his: while it meets all the other revealed facts of the case. It is not a theory for one fact. It includes them all; the fact that Christ died by covenant for his own people, that love for his own sheep led him to lay down his life, that his death renders their salvation absolutely certain, that it opens the way for the offer of salvation to all men, and shows the justice of the condemnation of unbelief. No MAN PERISHES FOR THE WANT OF AN ATONEMENT, is the doctrine of the Synod of Dort ; it is also our doctrine. Charles Hodge, “Beman on the Atonement,” in Essays and Reviews, (New York, Robert Carter & Brothers, 1857), 181-2.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

the genius and complexity of john calvin:

citations from calvin on the unlimited work of

expiation and redemption of Christ

©

 

 

Explanatory Notes

 

1) The first thing that needs to be said is that the reader should endeavor to read all of these citations before making a judgement about any given quotation. Too often readers of Calvin rush to hasty generalizations. This is often due to their zeal to read Calvin in the light of what he should have thought, should have said and should have taught. Many people read Calvin in the light of later 17^th century theological categories. Much of Calvin scholarship errs in reading Calvin in the light of newer and later theological trajectories, and not as the closing era of an older previous and classical trajectory. We would not do this with regard to Zwingli, Bullinger, Musculus, Gualther, Luther, Vermigli, but many are arbitrarily insistent that we do exactly this for Calvin. I argue that Calvin stood at the close of the Medieval-Synthesis with its classic Augustine–Prosper soteriology. He was not the forerunner of a new soteriological trajectory as many claim. For example, compare Calvin’s language and theology with those listed here, “Moderated Forms of “Calvinism” Documented Thus Far,” specially the ‘early Reformation era.’ Thus, to say again, one really should take the effort to read the following documentation before rushing to refutations or modern secondary sources.

2) With regard to sources, I have worked on the assumptions that the translations are ‘basically reliable.’ In some places I have endeavored to verify the quotations from the original Latin and French. For some of the sermon material, I have chosen to use the Old Paths publications. This is not because they can claim to be more accurate, but because they are more established translations. For Calvin’s Sermons on Galatians, the page number after the forward slash refers to the pages in the Kathy Childress translation. For other editions of Calvin’s Sermons, I have relied on the facsimile editions now published by the Banner of Truth, and the Banner’s other modern publications. For Calvin’s Institutes, I am use the Battles’ translation. I have used the Tracts translated by Henry Beveridge. For Commentaries I have used the older editions now published by Baker. The New Testament edition, edited by Torrance, is actually more accurate, but less well received. With regard to publication details, I have opted for a basic short-title approach as these works are easily accessible.

3) The following list, I believe, will be the most comprehensive list regarding Calvin’s view on the extent of the expiation and redemption that is available either online or in hard-print. My methodological approach has been to be as original as I can in my reading and searching. However, I have cross-referenced my list with lists by Alan Clifford, Jonathan Rainbow, and others such as Curt Daniel.¹ For sure, not every quotation has ‘equal evidential value,’ as some may be vulnerable to objection. Often criticisms directed at Clifford’s list claim that some of the quotations he supplies do not prove Clifford’s case in a bullet-proof manner. Then it seems that these critics will summarily dismiss the whole list as irrelevant. It seems to me that sometimes this objection assumes that every quotation must have equal evidential value. I believe, however, that when every quotation is read in the light of the whole, Calvin’s true position becomes undeniable to honest minds.

4) I have tried to be as honest and faithful as possible in providing needed context for the quotations. This has often been a charge labeled against the lists supplied by Clifford and others, that they are taking Calvin out of context. In none of the quotations below does Calvin ever seek to delimit the meanings of terms and phrases such as “world,” “whole world,” “the whole human race” to mean the elect or the church, except in two instances that I am aware of: his understanding of John’s use of “whole world” in 1 John 2:2, and the meaning of the field as the world, in the parable of the wheat and the tares. Though Calvin can be cited as referring to the human race as a species and indeterminately, there is no justification to take his many statements regarding terms like the whole human race as referring to the church or the elect. Indeed, it would be a strong claim to just insist that in the following quotations that wherever Calvin refers to ‘world,’ ‘the whole world,’ ‘the human race,’ ‘the whole human race,’ mankind,’ ‘all mankind,’ and so forth, he intended nothing more than to describe the church or the elect.

5) I believe that when the total theology as expressed in these quotations is absorbed and comprehended, the various evasive strategies often expressed by Calvin scholars will be seen as quite naturally impossible. By this I mean, the claims that because the extent of the atonement was not (allegedly) debated in Calvin’s time, we cannot press him to express an opinion on the matter. This is fallacious. Just because an issue was not debated by a given theologian or group of theologians, it does not follow that a man would not, indeed, could not, have an opinion on the matter. Further, the claims that Calvin often spoke from the perspective of the naive observer (Michael White) or that of the judgement of charity (Rainbow) or simply expressing the breadth of Scripture (Paul Archbald) or was simply being “wonderfully broad” (Iain Murray) is unsustainable by an honest and serious reading of the following material.

6) I should add that there are some theological strategies which are no more than ‘entailment’ arguments.’ These often go something like this: Substitutionary atonement entails limited atonement. Calvin held to substitutionary atonement, therefore Calvin held to limited atonement (Paul Helm). This entailment argument begs the question. For Luther, Zwingli, Bullinger, Musculus, Vermigli, and many others of this same time period, held to substitutionary atonement, yet did not hold to limited atonement. Those who use the above entailment argument need to establish textually from Calvin that he is an exception. Rather, what is happening is that many are unaware that there have been two versions of substitutionary atonement. Other entailment arguments are the assertions regarding the alleged connections between impetration and application, and expiation and intercession (Roger Nicole). Unfortunately, men like Nicole, retroject these later theological constructs into Calvin without demonstrating their use from Calvin’s corpus or as operative within Calvin’s theology.

7) Concerning the “wasted blood” and “redemption voided” quotations I have opted to combine these into one section. The redemption voided quotations are more vulnerable to critique as one may be tempted to say that Calvin was speaking purely hypothetically. For myself, I do not find that persuasive. Calvin’s supposition does seem to be that if we, or any, for whom Christ died reject him, the benefit of that death for the ‘rejector’ is actually and properly rendered void.

8) In response to the force of these quotations, some Calvin scholars have alleged that when Calvin spoke of Christ suffering for the sins of the whole world, he spoke simply to the free offer of the gospel (Nicole, Murray). However, in many of the following quotations, the offer of the gospel is not mentioned. Rather Calvin was directly expressing his opinion concerning the objective nature and extent of the expiation and sin-bearing. Therefore, I find no credible grounds for their contention. One other point needs to be made, when Calvin spoke of wretched souls or silly souls, in so doing Calvin consistently refers to unbelievers. Failure to see this is surely behind Rainbow’s persistent confusion regarding Calvin.

9) Regarding dates. In the 19^th century some scholars thought that Calvin started out holding to limited expiation and redemption, but later came to embrace an unlimited expiation and redemption position. In the 21^st century, sometimes this is reversed at the popular level. Many think that Calvin first embraced the unlimited position and, then, later came to embrace particular or limited atonement. The simple tabulation and cross-referencing publication dates shows both these claims to be unacceptable. For example:

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans 1540

The Bondage and Liberation of the Will 1543

Commentary on all the Epistles of Paul 1548

Sermons on Jeremiah 1548

Sermons on Acts 1549-1551

Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Epistles of Peter 1551

Sermons on Micah 1550-1551

Commentary on John, Jude, and James 1551

Commentary on Isaiah 1551

Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 1552

Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God 1553

Sermons on Psalm 1554

Commentary on Genesis 1554

Sermons on Job 1554-55

Sermons on Deuteronomy 1556-1556

Commentary on Hosea 1557

Commentary on the Psalms 1557

Sermons on Galatians 1557-1558

Sermons on Ephesians 1558

Sermons on Isaiah 53 1558

Sermons on the Deity of Christ and other Sermons Selection, 1558, 1559 and 1560

Commentary on the Twelve Minor Prophets 1559

Sermons on the Synoptic Gospels 1559

Sermons on 2 Samuel 1561-1564

Commentary on Daniel 1561

Commentary on Joshua 1562

Commentary on Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy 1563

Commentary on Jeremiah 1563

Commentary on the Three Gospels and Commentary on St John 1563

10) Readers are encouraged to interact with me on this material in the comments. There I am prepared to defend my assumptions, interpretations and conclusions regarding Calvin. However, I will not entertain abuse or accusative comments. Only comments that advance an adult and civil conversation will be allowed. All advice regarding typos and such errors will be welcomed.

11) The following material is the result of quite a few years of research. Originally my intention was to use this as a basis for a Ph.D project, but I have come to the consideration that the material needs to be made available to the wider public. Therefore I ask that while anyone may repost or republish these quotations that they give the source (URL or link) back to this site and further request that others do so as well. I will update this file as I find more relevant statements, and I will update these introductory remarks on an ‘as needed’ basis.

 

Calvin on occasional definitions and comments of value

 

The blood of Christ as the price of our salvation:

For this knowledge alone, that the death of Christ was ordained by the eternal counsel of God, did cut off all occasion of foolish and wicked cogitation’s, and did prevent all offenses which might otherwise be conceived. For we must know this, that God doth decree nothing in vain or rashly; whereupon it followeth that there was just cause for which he would have Christ to suffer. The same knowledge of God’s providence is a step to consider the end and fruit of Christ’s death. For this meeteth us by and by in the counsel of God, that the just was delivered for our sins, and that his blood was the price of our death. Calvin, Acts 2:23.

The nature of justification:

There is indeed nothing less reasonable than to remove from ceremonies only the power of justifying, since Paul excludes all works indefinitely. To the same purpose is the negative clause,—that God justifies men by not imputing sin: and by these words we are taught that righteousness, according to Paul, is nothing else than the remission of sins; and further, that this remission is gratuitous, because it is imputed without works, which the very name of remission indicates; for the creditor who is paid does not remit, but he who Spontaneously cancels the debt through mere kindness. Calvin, Romans 4:6.

Who is our neighbour:

For if we recall that man is made in the image of God, we must consider our neighbour to be holy and sacred, in such a way that it is impossible to abuse him without abusing the image of God which is in him. Calvin, Truth for All Time, (Banner of Truth, 1998, trans., by Stuart Olyott), 18-19,

Moreover, it must be observed that, in the second passage, they are commanded to love strangers and foreigners as themselves. Hence it appears that the name of neighbor is not confined to our kindred, or such other persons with whom we are nearly connected, but extends to the whole human race; as Christ shows in the person of the Samaritan, who had compassion on an unknown man, and performed towards him the duties of humanity neglected by a Jew, and even a Levite. (Luke 10:30.) Calvin, Leviticus 19:33.

How does our neighbour perish:

Everyone would have to think that God does not judge us and that we will not experience his punishment unless we offend him. He invites us ever so gently to repent, but our hearts are hard. We do not want to come to him, and it has been a long time since we have individually stirred our neighbours, or rather urged him, to come to God. Consequently we are so insensitive that we do not feel the hand of God upon us to correct us. We see in this passage the trouble the Jews go to in order to ease their neighbours’ pain. There is not one who does not help those in need because of their physical health. As for us, we are not moved even when we see our neighbours perish in body or soul. We would not lift a finger. Their sense of brotherhood does not exist among us today, and that comes from the fact that there is no gratitude in either the small or the great. The small suffer may ills, but if you look at their ill will and their perversity, you will find they are filled with fraud, trickery, and deception. If they could. they would be ravening wolves. As for the great, they think the poor exist for them to prey upon. Their disposition to be merciless is so great that they will suck out their life’s blood and gnaw the bones. Calvin, Sermons on Acts, 222.

Who is our brother:

Yet we see who are our brethren, namely even our very enemies, such as persecute us, and such as could find in their hearts to eat us up. And yet for all that, even with them must we maintain brotherhood…

And whereas in this text the word “brother,” indeed it had respect to the lineage of Abraham. But nowadays we all have one father, who is called upon in all languages and in all countries (1 Tim 2:4). He has not chosen the race of any one man, nor shut up his service within any one certain country. For he partition wall is broken down (Eph 2:16), so as there is not now any difference of Jews and Gentiles, according as is told us that we be all one body in our Lord Jesus Christ, and that seeing God is proclaimed by the Gospel to our Saviour and Father, we must maintain a brotherhood among us.

As touching the word “neighbour,” the law has used it of purpose to show men that they may well shrink away one from another, but yet they be all of one known kind, according to his saying of the prophet Isaiah say, Thou shalt not despise thine own flesh (Isa 58:7). if I can say, This man is of a far country, there was never any acquaintances betwixt us, one of us can not speak a word that the other can understand: what s all this to the purpose? Let me look upon him and behold him thoroughly, and I shall find the same nature in him that is in my self: I shall see that God has made him so like me, as if we were but one flesh. And all mankind is of such shape and fashion, that we have good cause to love one another, and to know that we ought to be all one. Although here be some differences as touching this present life: yet ought we to consider that we should tend all to one end, even unto God who is the father of us all. And therefore it is not without cause that instead of saying, thou shalt do so to all men, our Lord says thou shalt do so to thy neighbour… yet we cannot bring to pass that all men should not be our neighbours, because we are all one self same nature, whereby God has knit us and linked us all together. The thing then which we have to mark in this part of the text upon the word “Brother,” is that whereas God speaks after the manner to the Jews, because he had adopted the lineage of Abraham: it shows us nowadays that we must all be as brothers, for as much as our Lord Jesus Christ has proclaimed peace through the whole world, and God is at one again with all nations and all men. See it is so, it behooves us to maintain the brotherhood which was procured by Christ’s bloodshed, and whereunto God calls us. And although many spiteful persons go about to violate it by their unkindness in shrinking away from the Church, and become our enemies, by giving us occasion to do them harm: yet notwithstanding et us strive against their naughtiness, and labour to procure their salvation of their souls, and that welfare of their bodies so as far as we can. Calvin, Sermons on Deuteronomy, Sermon 125, 22:1-4, 771 and 772.

The elect can never perish:

Also Luke teacheth in the same words, that it cannot be that any of the elect should perish. For he saith not that one or a few of the elect did believe, but so many as were elect. For though God’s election be unknown to us until we perceive it by faith, yet is it not doubtful or in suspense in his secret counsel; because he commendeth all those whom he counteth his to the safeguard and tuition of his Son, who will continue a faithful keeper even unto the end. Calvin, Acts 13:48.

There was another, a general election; for he received his whole seed into his faith, and offered to all his covenant. At the same time, they were not all regenerated, they were not all gifted with the Spirit of adoption. This general election was not then efficacious in all. Solved now is the matter in debate, that no one of the elect shall perish; for the whole people were not elected in a special manner; but God knew whom he had chosen out of that people; and them he endued, as we have said, with the Spirit of adoption, and supplied with his own grace, that they might never fall away. Others were indeed chosen in a certain way, that is, God offered to them the covenant of salvation; but yet through their ingratitude they caused God to reject them, and to disown them as children. Calvin, Hosea 12:3-5.

Accordingly, while he “profanes” his Church, that is, abandons her, and gives her up as a prey to her enemies, still the elect do not perish, and his eternal covenant is not broken. Calvin, Isaiah 47:6.

If God knows whom he wishes to save, the elect cannot perish and are therefore left unimpeded. What good would it do to go to all that trouble? And why? Those whom God has ordained to salvation cannot fail, so let them go on their way. Calvin, Sermons on Acts, 278.

 

 

Part I: Unlimited Imputation and Expiation

 

[1] THE SINS OF THE WORLD

sermons

1) Furthermore, to the end we may be discharged of all self-trust, let us look upon the notable example that was given us at the death of our Lord Jesus Christ. For if we will go the right way to heaven, we must follow the poor thief to whom he said, This day shalt thou be with me in paradise. How can we be sure that God will in the kingdom of heaven, seeing that we seek hell, and our all our affections, all our thoughts, all of our desires, all our powers , and all our works, tend wholly thither, even to separate us from God, wand to alienate us from his kingdom, and to drive us away from life and salvation? How may we (say I) be sure that God will take us up into his heavenly kingdom? We must have recourse to his word that was spoken to the poor thief: This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise. Seeing it is so that our Lord died, & that he entered into such gulfs of sorrow, that he was pinched so far as to abide the torments that were due to unto us, and not only abode the reproach and grief of bodily death, but also felt the Justice of God, and became as a wretched offender to bear all the sins of the world: let us not doubt but he has delivered us from the pains & anguish which we should have felt, and will lift us up to himself, and therefore now must us not be afraid of death. John Calvin, Sermons on Deuteronomy, Sermon 5, 1:19-21, p., 29.

2) And moreover, besides that the son of God has offered up himself for redemption: let us understand that he makes us partakers of that benefit at this day, by means of the Gospel. For he gathers us to him to the intent that we should be of his flock. That is true he is the lamb without spot which wipes away the sins of the world, and that he has offered himself up to reconcile men unto God [John 1:29, 2 Tim 1:9, 10 Rom 5:10, and 2 Cor 5:19]. But yet for all that, we see a great number of people are that are let alone, against whom the gate is shut, and GOD does not grant them the grace to be enlightened by faith as we be. John Calvin, Sermons on Deuteronomy, Sermon 31, 5: 4-7, p., 187.

3) Also there was the great sanctuary whereunto the high-priest entered all alone with great solemnity. And all this served to show yet more lively the death and passion of our Lord Jesus Christ. But now all those things are come to an end. For there is no more shadowing, the veil (as it is said) is broken asunder, and we have the heavenly sanctuary whereunto we be called right forth, and Jesus Christ has set it open for us. And so there needs now no more burn offering, there needs no more sacrificing for sins: for our Lord Jesus Christ has by his one only sacrifice wiped away the sins of the world, and made an everlasting atonement [reconciliation], the virtue whereof can never be diminished. As often then as we will preach unto God, it is not for us to bring thither either calf or sheep, but we must resort to the bloodshed of our Lord Jesus Christ, because that thereby the everlasting redemption is purchased unto us. John Calvin, Sermons on Deuteronomy, Sermon 194, 33:9-11, p., 1207.

4) Let us mark then, that he [Job] was not possessed or oppressed with such a despair as he utters here, but that God made him to feel his goodness in some sort. We see this yet much better in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ He says, Why has thou forsaken me? And indeed he is there in extremity, as the party that bears the burden of all the sins of the world. Therefore it was requisite that for a while Jesus Christ should feel himself as it were forsaken of God his Father. But yet nevertheless he had a comfort to the contrary as he showed by saying, “My God, my God” (Matt 27:46). John Calvin, Sermons on Job, Sermon 35, Job 9:16-22, p., 161.

Read the rest of this entry »