Notice: register_sidebar_widget is deprecated since version 2.8.0! Use wp_register_sidebar_widget() instead. in /home/q85ho9gucyka/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 3931
Calvin and Calvinism » 2009 » April

Archive for April, 2009

30
Apr

Andrew Lincoln on Ephesians 2:3

   Posted by: CalvinandCalvinism    in Ephesians 2:3

Lincoln:

kai emetha tekna phusei orges os kai loipoi, “and we were by nature children of wrath like the rest.” When they once lived their lives in such total absorption with the flesh, the writer and all believers were tekna. . . orges, “children of wrath.” This is a Hebraism, like “sons of disobedience” in v 2, which means they were deserving of and liable to wrath. This wrath is clearly God’s wrath (cf. Eph 5:6; also Col 3:5,6) rather than merely an impersonal process of cause and effect or a principle of retribution in a moral universe. The wrath of God is a concept which occurs frequently in Paul’s letter to the Romans. It refers to God’s active judgment going forth against all forms of sin and evil and is evidence of his absolute holiness (cf. Rom 1:18; 2:5,8; 3:5; 4:15; 5:9; 9:22; 12: 19; 13:4,5). The Hebraistic expression used here in Eph 2:3 reminds one of the way in which in the OT a person deserving of punishment is spoken of as a “son of stripes” (Deut 25:2) or a person doomed to die is spoken of as a “son of death” (cf. 1 Sam 26: 16; 2 Sam 12:5; Ps 102:20). It is also reminiscent of the way in which in apocalyptic literature Cain, in being marked out for judgment, is described as a “son of wrath” (Apoc. Mos. 3). In the NT also, Jesus is represented as condemning the proselytizing of the Pharisees, declaring that when they made a convert he was twice as much a “son of Gehenna” as they themselves (Matt 23: 15). The children of wrath, then, are those who are doomed to God’s wrath because through their condition of sinful rebellion, they deserve his righteous judgment.

As does Paul in Rom 1:18-3:20, the writer makes this category cover all humanity outside Christ. os kai oi loipoi means “like the rest of humanity,” and in this way the sinful condition and its consequences, which the writer has been describing, become all-embracing in their extent. What was once true of the readers (vv 1,2) was also once true of all believers (v 3a), and what was once true of all believers is also true of the rest of humanity (v 3b). The human condition of being destined to judgment in the day of God’s wrath is a condition that is “by nature.” What is the force of the term phusei here? Elsewhere the noun phusis can refer to the natural order of things (cf. Rom 1:26; 1 Cor 11:14), but the actual expression phusei the dative, “by nature,” occurs elsewhere in the NT in Gal 2: 15, “we who are Jews by nature,” where it refers to that which comes through birth rather than that which is acquired later (cf. also phuseos in Rom 2:27), in Gal 4:8, where it means “in reality,” and in Rom 2:14, 15, where it means “of one’s own free will, voluntarily, independently.” phusei in Eph 2:3 belongs with the first of these uses (cf. also A. Bonhoffer, Epiktet und das NT [Giessen: Topelmann, 19111 146-54; BAGD 869; Barth, 23 1; contra Gnilka, 117). So, in their natural condition, through birth, men and women are “children of wrath.”

Some commentators (e.g., J. A. Robinson, 50-51; Gnilka, 117; Barth, 231) wish to dissociate the thought expressed in this verse from any notion of original sin. (On the history of interpretation of this verse in connection with that doctrine, as seen mainly from a Catholic perspective, see Mehlmann’s Latin monograph, Natura filii Irae.) But if original sin refers to the innate sinfulness of human nature inherited from Adam in consequence of the fall, then such a notion is not entirely alien to the thought of this verse when it speaks of the impossibility of humanity of itself, in its natural condition, escaping God’s wrath. To be sure, the verse does not explicitly teach original sin by making a statement about how this tragic plight came to be humanity’s natural condition. Yet the idea of the natural condition in which one finds oneself by birth being a sinful state deserving of God’s judgment surely presupposes some such view of original sin as is found in Rom 5:12-21, where Paul recognizes that, as well as sinning themselves, men and women, in solidarity with Adam, inherit a sinful situation by sharing in the one sin of the one man (cf. also Schlier, 107; BAGD 869, where Eph 2:3 is translated “we were, in our natural condition [as descendants of Adam], children of wrath.”) “By nature” should not of course be taken to mean that sinfulness is of the essence of human nature. In Pauline thought sin is always abnormal, a disorder, but in a fallen world the natural condition of human beings involves experience of that abnormality and disorder. In this sense, Eph 2:l-10 contains a contrast between nature and grace, between fallen human existence in and of itself and the divine initiative required if human life is to be restored to what it was meant to be.

Andrew Lincoln “Ephesians,” Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas, Tex.: Word Books, 1990), 98-99. [Note: Liable should be understood in its legal sense, rather than its more general conversational sense.]

Mayhew:

Now, what unparalleled Love is this to self-destroying Sinners, to whom God may truly say, as in Hosea 13. 9. Oh Israel, host destroyed thy self; but in me is thine Help. This Love of God is very much celebrated in the holy Scriptures. Give me Leave to recite a few of the Passages wherein it is so. John 3. 16. For God so loved the World, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting Life, 1 John 4. 9,10. In this was manifested the Love of God towards us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the World, that we might live thro’ him. Herein is Love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the Propitiation for our Sins. 2 Cor. 5. 18, 19, 20. God—hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the Ministry of Reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the World unto himself, not imputing their Trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the Word of Reconciliation. Now then we are Ambassadors for Christ, as tho” God did beseech you by us: We pray you in Christ’s Stead, be ye reconciled unto God. Matth. 23. 37. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the Prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy Children together, even as a Hen gathereth her Chickens under her Wings, and ye would not! Rom. 2.4. Or despiseth thou the Riches of his Goodness, and Forbearance, and Longsuffering; not knowing that the Goodness of God  leadeth thee to Repentance. Hosea 11. 4. I drew them with Cords of a Man, with Bands of Love; and I was to them as they that take off the Yoke on their Jaws; and I laid Meat before them.

I am not ashamed to say, (if I were I should be ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, contrary to Rom. i. 16.) that the Love of God thus manifested towards Sinners, has not a Relation to the Elect only, (tho’ principally unto them) but extends itself to the whole World, as in the mentioned John 3. 16. and in i John 2. 2. Mark 16. 15, 16, and 2 Cor. 5. 19, as I will, if I am put upon it, and God gives me Liberty, more fully show.

Read the rest of this entry »

28
Apr

F.F. Bruce on Ephesians 2:3

   Posted by: CalvinandCalvinism    in Ephesians 2:3

Bruce:

V. 3 among whom we also all once lived in the lusts of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind,

–Paul is writing to Christians of Gentile birth, but when he reminds them that they once lived in accordance with the standards accepted by the ‘sons of disobedience’, he makes haste to say that this was equally true of Christians of Jewish birth, not excluding himself. The ‘desires of the flesh’ may take many different forms, and Paul elsewhere lists the things in which he formerly took such patriotic and religious pride as samples of his ‘confidence in the flesh’ (Phil. 3. 4-6). For the ‘flesh’, the unregenerate nature of man, can manifest itself in respectable forms as well as in the disreputable pursuits of first-century paganism. For ‘the mind’ we might substitute ‘our minds’ or ‘our thoughts’, in order to indicate that the Greek word (dianoia) is plural here; these are minds, of course, which have not yet been renewed so as to approve the will of God (Rom. 12. 2).

and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest:

–We who were Jews by birth and upbringing, he says, were as much under the wrath of God as those who were born and reared as pagans. These few words sum up the argument of Rom. I. 18-2. 29, where Gentile and Jew alike are shown to have incurred the revelation of God’s wrath from heaven.

F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Ephesians: A Verse by Verse Exposition (New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1970), 48-49.

27
Apr

John Wycliffe (1320s?-1384) on John 1:29

   Posted by: CalvinandCalvinism    in John 1:29

Wycliffe:

THE SONDAI WITHNNE OCTAVE OF TWELTHE DAI.

[SERMON XXX]

Vidit Johannes Jesum venientem ad se.—JOH. i. [29.]

This gospel tellith a witnesse, how Baptist witnesside of Crist, both of his godhede and eke of his manhede. The storye seith thus, that Joon say Jesus comynge to him and saide thus of oure Lord, Lo the loomb of God; lo him that takith awey the synnes of this world, for he is bothe God and man. Crist is clepid Goddis lombe, for many resouns of the lawe. In the olde lawe weren thei wont to offre a lombe withouten wem, the whiche shulde be of o gere, for the synne of the puple. Thus Crist, that was with outen wem, and of o geer in mannis elde was offrid in the cros for the synne of al this worlde, and where siche lambren that weren offrid felden sum tyme to the preestis, this lombe that made ende of other felde1 fulli to Goddis hond. And other lambren in a maner fordide the synne of o cuntre, but this lombe proprely fordide the synne of alle this worlde. And thus he was ende and figure of lambren of the olde lawe, and thus shewith Baptist by his double spekynge the manhede of Crist and his godhede; for oonly God mygte thus fordo synne, sith alle other lambren hadden wemmes, tha thei mygten not hem silfe fordo. And so, al if preestis have power to relese synne as Cristis vikeris, netheles thei have this power in as myche as thei acorden with Crist; so tha yif ther keies and Cristis wille be discording atwynne, thei feynen hem falsely to assoile, and than thei neither loosen ne bynden; so that in ech siche worchynge the godhede of Crist mut first wirche.

John Wyclif, Select English Works, ed. by Thomas Arnold (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1869), 1:77.

[Notes: 1), I have retained all the original font/type characters except for 2 characters. The original typeset character “Þ,” I have converted to “th” for the ease of reading. One other symbol I have replaced  either with “g” or “y” where appropriate. This symbol has no corresponding font or symbol that I can find on my font and symbol maps. 2), This is an extract from his sermon on John 1:29, and the only place he makes this remark. There is no attempt to delimit the meaning of world throughout the entire sermon. 3), No spelling modernized; footnote values original; underlining mine.]

____________________

1fel, C.

24
Apr

Laurence Proctor on Amyraut’s “Christ Died Equally For All”

   Posted by: CalvinandCalvinism    in Historiography

Proctor:

78. De Grat (Gen) 116-7.  In this way, Amyraut could say that Christ died equally for all. In the statement that Christ died pro omnibus equiliter (explained Daillé, Apologiae ii 632), the theologians of Saumur meant the adverb to signify that there is none for whom Christ did not die; it does not mean that all are equal in affection or will of God in giving Christ to die. Cf. Drost, Specimen 25: Amyraut and Testard explained the death of Christ for all equally in terms of sufficiency.

For the of the Synod on this matter, see Quick, Synod ii 354: “Whereupon, although the Assembly were well satisfied, yet nevertheless they decreed that for the future that the phrase of Jesus Christ’s dying equally for all, should be forborne, because the term equally was formerly, and might be so again, an occasion of stumbling for many.”

Amyraut explained the two uses of the adverb in De Grat (Gen) 223.

Lawrence Proctor, “The Theology of Moïse Amyraut Considered as a Reaction Against Seventeenth-Century Calvinism” (Ph.D. diss., University of Leeds, 1952),  footnote 78, p., 376. [Note: Proctor’s oringinal underlining converted to italics.]

Credit to Tony