Calvin:

3. “Among whom also we all had our conversation.” Lest it should be supposed that what he had now said was a slanderous reproach against the former character of the Ephesians, or that Jewish pride had led him to treat the Gentiles as an inferior race, he associates himself and his countrymen along with them in the general accusation. This is not done in hypocrisy, but in a sincere ascription of glory to God. It may excite wonder, indeed, that he should speak of himself as having walked “in the lusts of the flesh,” while, on other occasions, he boasts that his life had been throughout irreproachable.

“Touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.” (Philippians 3:6.)

And again,

“Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily, and justly, and unblamably, we behaved ourselves among you that believe.” (1 Thessalonians 2:10)

I reply, the statement applies to all who have not been regenerated by the Spirit of Christ. However praiseworthy, in appearance, the life of some may be, because their lusts do not break out in the sight of men, there is nothing pure or holy which does not proceed from the fountain of all purity.

“Fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind.” To fulfill these desires, is to live according to the guidance of our natural disposition and of our mind. “The flesh” means here the disposition, or, what is called, the inclination of the nature; and the next expression (ton dianoion) means what proceeds from the mind. Now, “the mind” includes reason, such as it exists in men by nature; so that lusts do not refer exclusively to the lower appetites, or what is called the sensual part of man, but extend to the whole.

“And were by nature children of wrath.” All men without exception, whether Jews or Gentiles, (Galatians 2:15,16,) are here pronounced to be guilty, until they are redeemed by Christ; so that out of Christ there is no righteousness, no salvation, and, in short, no excellence. “Children of wrath” are those who are lost, and who deserve eternal death. Wrath means the judgment of God; so that “the children of wrath” are those who are condemned before God. Such, the apostle tells us, had been the Jews,—such had been all the excellent men that were now in the Church; and they were so by “nature,” that is, from their very commencement, and from their mother’s womb.

Read the rest of this entry »

Hodge:

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, in (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…

Read the rest of this entry »

Rouwendal:

1. Reply to Heshusius

According to Roger Nicole and Paul Helm, Calvin states explicitly in his reply to Tilemann Heshusius that Christ had not died for unbelievers.⁴⁵

In the dispute between Calvin and Heshusius concerning the Lord’s Supper, Heshusius defended the corporeal presence of Christ. One of Calvin’s contra-arguments was:

I would like to know how the ungodly can eat from Christ’s flesh that was not crucified for them, and how they can drink from the blood that was not shed to reconcile their sins.⁴⁶

These words seem to be a powerful argument to ascribe the doctrine of particular atonement to Calvin, and so they were used by those who argued for this position. But is this really such a powerful argument? We need to observe something before arriving at such a conclusion.

First, these words are a single, isolated remark in a tract that deals with quite another subject. Hence, they cannot be viewed as a thoughtful rejection of universal redemption. Second, it is neither fair nor realistic to use this single sentence in order to ignore the many sentences wherein Calvin stated that Christ died for the whole world. Third, it should be noted that even though Calvin states here that Christ did not die for (some) ungodly, no clear doctrine of particular redemption is offered here. Fourth, one should take notice of Calvin’s word choice, as well as the context wherein he uses them. The words Calvin chooses do not deny that Christ died for all men, but rather that he died for the ungodly. The context does not deal with justification (for Calvin surely maintained that it was for the justification of the ungodly that Christ died, and hence, that Christ died for the ungodly), but rather with the Lord’s Supper. Calvin’s intention was to make clear that Christ is not corporally present. In the immediate context of the quoted sentence, he uses the argument that if Christ were present corporally, the ungodly would eat his flesh and drink his blood, which Calvin deemed impossible. Hence, it is not implausible to interpret the quoted words as follows: “I would like to know how the ungodly can eat from Christ’s flesh, and how they can drink the blood of which they have no part through faith.”⁴⁷ Another (maybe even more plausible) interpretation would be that since the context is about eating and drinking the flesh and blood of Christ by faith, Calvin here had in mind the efficiency of Christ’s death, so that the quotation can be read as follows: “I would like to know how the ungodly can eat from Christ’s flesh that was not crucified for them effectively, and how they can drink from the blood that was not effectively shed to reconcile their sins.”

Source: P.L. Rouwendal, “Calvin’s Forgotten Classical Position on the Extent of the Atonement: About Sufficiency, Efficiency, and Anachronism,” Westminster Theological Journal 70 (2008): 330-331. [Footnote values original; underlining mine.]

[Note: This an exceptionally interesting article that argues for a basic three-fold classification schema of Particularism, Hypothetical Universalism and the Classical position (the Prosper-Lombard trajectory) within Reformed theology. It seems to me that his schema fits well with Richard Muller’s divisions of Particularism, Speculative-Amyraldian Hypothetical Universalism, and Non-Speculative Hypothetical Universalism. Acknowledging this three-fold categorization takes our scholarship past the dated dichotomies of Nicole and Helm.]

_______________________

⁴⁵Nicole, “Calvin’s View,” 303; Helm, Calvin and the Calvinists, 21.

⁴⁶CO, 9:484: “. . . scire velim quomodo Christi carnem edant impii, pro quibus non est crucifixa, et quomodo sanguinem bibant, qui expiandis eorum peccatis non est effusus.”

⁴⁷Curt Daniel drew a similar conclusion, which is added to the 2d ed of Kendall, Calvin and English Calvinism, Appendix 2,231-38.

[Explanatory Note: Marlorate often references the “offer of grace,” or the “offer of mercy” or the “offer of pardon,” and so forth. But he rarely elaborates further. Here, however, we find some explicit connections between the offer, itself, and the disposition of grace and favor on the part of God and Christ in the offer.]

Marlorate:

1) “And I went to the Angell.”

A. [Marlorate] John refuses not the benefit that is offered him, he alleges not his own worthiness, he puts no doubt that perchance he shall not obtain it: but perceiving himself to be counseled by God, he demanded the Book of the Angel. Even so as often as God calls us to the partaking of his benefits, we must reverently and soberly receive the things that his Fatherly liberality offers unto us, except we will be counted double unthankful. Therefore let them see what answer they can make unto Christ, who leaving him, do with divelishly superstition run unto dead Saints, or rather to dumb stocks and Idols, when they would obtain any benefit. For it is not for nought that Christ has said, “Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you,” Matt. 11.28. Also, “he that comes unto me shall not hunger, and he that believes in me shall not thirst for ever,” John. 6.35. Also, “if any man thirst, let him come to unto me and drink,” John. 7.37. “If he ask anything of the Father in my name, he will give it you,” John. 16.23. And S. James says, “If any of you want wisdom let him ask it of him that gives, namely of God, who” (I say), “gives to all men freely without upbraiding: and it shall be given unto him,” James 1.5.

“And he said unto me, take the book.”

Like as John does not demand the book before he was bidden by the Angel: so now being commanded and advised to ask it, he asks it boldy & obtains it, to the intent we may know that God allures us not to deceive us. G. [Gaspar Megander] Hereupon are these sayings of Christ, “Ask, and ye shall receive; seek, and ye shall find: knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For everyone that asks receives,” &c, Mat. 7.7,8.  Augustine Marlorate, A Catholike exposition vpon the Reuelation of Sainct Iohn, (Printed by H. Binneman, for L. Harison, and G. Bishop, 1574),) Rev. 10:10, p., 145b. [Some spelling modernized and formatting modified.]

2) A. [Marlorate] Then let us learn in season to shun this great wrath, that we be not compelled to feel the greatness of it with the ungodly. Let us humbly say unto God, “turn away thy wrath from us,” Psal. 85.4. And seeing that Christ sits now upon the thrown of mercy, and calls all men to amendment: we must beware that we abuse not his graciousness, nor despise not his mercy, as though it could stand us in no stead, upon trust of our own works. But rather let us go with faith to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find favor to be helped in due season. Hebr. 4.16. “For Lo, now is the time of accepting into favor, now is the day of Salvation,” 2 Cor. 6.2. But then shall be the time of punishment & the day of vengeance, howbeit unto those only which have despised the time of Salvation adn grace through froward unthankfulness. Augustine Marlorate, A Catholike exposition vpon the Reuelation of Sainct Iohn, (Printed by H. Binneman, for L. Harison, and G. Bishop, 1574),) Rev. 14:19, pp,. 218-219. [Some spelling modernized and formatting modified.]