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 » July

Archive for July, 2009

31
Jul

William Shedd (1820-1894) on the Free Offer of the Gospel

   Posted by: CalvinandCalvinism    in The Well-Meant Offer

In relation to common and special grace, Shedd says:

These two forms and grades of grace, so plainly described in the Scripture texts above cited, are mentioned in the Westminister Confession, vii. 3, “Man by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that [legal] covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace, wherein he freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained to life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.” According to this statement there are two things contained in the covenant of grace: (a) An offer to sinners of life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved ; and (b) a promise to give unto all those that are ordained to life the Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe. The “offer ” in the covenant of grace is made to all sinners without exception, but the “promise” in the covenant is made only to “those that are ordained to life,” or the elect. The “offer” is common grace; the “promise” is special grace. The “offer “is taught in such Scriptures as, “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth shall be saved.” Mark 10:15. “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 3:16. The “promise” is taught in such Scriptures as, “A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you, and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.” Ezek. 36: 26, 27. “All that the Father gives me shall come to me ; and him that cometh to me [because given by the Father] I will in no wise cast out. No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me, draw him.” John 6:37, 44.

Calvinism: Pure and Mixed, (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1893), 98. [Some spelling modernized; underlining mine.]

[Note: To be clear, one should not take Shedd’s distinction here as absolute. There is a place for conditional promises as offered to all men, and that as an expression of God’s compassion towards all. Cf. Calvin, or Turretin, Institutes, 1:415.]

Kennard:

THE MEANING OF PETRINE REDEMPTION

The basic concept of redemption is the exchanging of ownership, often by paying a price. Peter expresses this thought with two words. First, lytroo means “to set free, redeem or rescue” and often includes paying a ransom.1 The second word, agorazo, emphasizes the market imagery of purchasing goods.2 In such an exchange the goods are set free from the seller, usually to be possessed by the purchaser.

Redemption is applied to people when they are freed from a previous owner. For example, both Greek words for redemption are used to describe the purchasing of slaves. Such redemption may result in enslavement to a new owner or in the slave’s being set free.3 Furthermore these words express the idea of ransom, wherein a conqueror may free prisoners by defeating their master in battle.4 The above examples of human redemption involve the one redeemed exchanging allegiance to the previous dominating power for allegiance to the one accomplishing the redemption. The redemption of people, however, does not require the one redeemed to have a new owner. The person may simply be set free.

The purchase price of the redemption Peter talks about was the death of Christ. For example, Peter heard Jesus say that his purpose in coming was to give his life as a ransom for many (Matt 20:28; Mark 10:45). Such an idea is substitutionary in nature: Jesus died in the place of others.5 Peter develops this theme by first designating what the price of redemption was not and then identifying what it was (1 Pet 1:18-19). For example, the price was not perishable (phthartois), that which is subject to corruption or destruction.6 Additionally, silver and gold are mentioned as dross compared to the extreme value (time) of the actual price paid. In contrast the actual price is the precious blood of Christ. The imagery of the blood refers to Christ’s death, not to Bengelian effusion (draining Christ dry in order to obtain his blood as the imperishable material substance of value).7 Peter and others in his presence use the concept of the blood of Christ as a reference to Christ’s death (Acts 1:19; 5:28), which is further indicated by the context that develops that Christ rose from the dead (1 Pet 1:21). Thus Christ’s death is characterized by a simile: Christ’s blood shed was like that of the sacrificial lamb–that is, the lamb was unblemished and spotless, indicating the required purity of the sacrifice. Therefore Jesus Christ is a pure sacrifice who died for the redemption of mankind.

Read the rest of this entry »

29
Jul

Douglas Kennard on 2 Peter 2:1

   Posted by: CalvinandCalvinism    in 2 Peter 2:1 (and Jude 4)

Kennard:

THE EXTENT OF PETRINE REDEMPTION

This is a difficult issue, based on the interpretation of 2 Pet 2:1. Two non-soteriological solutions are suggested: (1) God’s bringing Israel out of Egypt, and (2) God’s temporally delivering false teachers from sins. There are four soteriological solutions as well: (1) Peter’s charitably calling the false teachers by their own description, (2) hypothetical redemption, (3) loss of salvation, and (4) the apostatizing of previously non-saved knowers of the truth. Instead of defending and critiquing each position I will attempt to show that contextually the most reasonable view of 2:1 maintains the apostatizing of previously non-saved knowers of the truth who have been soteriologically redeemed.12

The redemption is not that of bringing Israel out of Egypt because 2 Peter 1s written to a mixed group of Christians, some of whom have come from Gentile backgrounds. Most notably, in 2:1 “the people,” which should be understood as Israel,13 are distinguished from the recipients of Peter’s letter. That is, Israel had false prophets; the present recipients will have false teachers rise from among them. Furthermore, since 2 Peter is now Peter’s second letter, 2 Peter is written to the same group as 1 Peter (2 Pet 3:1). In this case the recipients of these letters include Gentiles along with Jews, as indicated by the Asia Minor church character and the previous manner of the lives of the recipients, For example, when Jews rejected the offer of salvation Gentiles in Asia Minor rejoiced at being included in salvation. Additionally Peter’s description of the ignorant, futile way of life in Gentile excesses is a strong indication that Gentiles are included (1 Pet 1:14, 18; 4:4). Since Peter writes to a group of Christians from mixed backgrounds it is inappropriate to claim that the exodus was accomplished for them.14

The context of 2 Peter develops soteriological concerns.15 For example, the recipients of the letter have the same kind of faith as Peter (2 Pet 1:1). Additionally the recipients have been granted everything pertaining to life and godliness through the true knowledge of Christ (1:3). Furthermore they are to be applying moral excellence, knowledge, self-control, perseverance and godliness in their lives as they pursue the kingdom (1:5-6, 11). Following this. Peter guarantees that kingdom salvation shall be fulfilled by appealing to earlier stages of the prophecy that have already occurred (1:16-19). Those who do not pursue such things, however, shall be severely judged and miss salvation (2:2-9). Some have escaped such defilement through this knowledge of Christ only to be reentangled, which results in being worse off than at first (2:20-22). That is, these scoffers shall be condemned while the beloved shall be saved (3:3-15). The temporal deliverances of Noah and Lot in the midst of temporal judgments of others are subsumed under the greater soteriological concerns (2:5, 7, 9). These deliverances are not developed to make the great day of judgment seem less. Rather, they reinforce the fact that since God has judged previously, he will certainly do so again in this greater future judgment when he also saves those who are his. The buying (agorazo) is best seen as soteriological redemption. Even though agorazo does not translate OT words for soteriological redemption, the word always means soteriological redemption in the NT when it refers to people as the object of the purchase (1 Cor 6:20; 7:23; Rev 5:9; 14:3-4). The context clearly develops soteriological issues. Within this development there is a major emphasis on lifestyle, which is quite appropriate to Petrine redemption. For example, those who have knowledge of Christ are to abundantly appropriate in their lives faith, moral excellence, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness and love (2 Pet 1:2-7). This meaningful way of life assures the believer that he shall bear fruit and enter into the eternal kingdom (1:8-11). This meaningful way of life is the reverse of the preredemptive, futile, sinful way of life (1 Pet 1:18; 2 Pet 1:9). So agorazo here is best seen as soteriological redemption. The lack of a mentioned price is no reason to overthrow this soteriological meaning since half of the NT soteriological meanings of this word omit any mention of a price (2 Pet 2:1; Rev 14:3-4).

Read the rest of this entry »

28
Jul

Jeremias Bastingius (1551-1595) on the Death of Christ

   Posted by: CalvinandCalvinism    in For Whom did Christ Die?

Bastingius:

Christ bore our sins (sample):

1) Whereupon Paul doubts not to say that God has already set us with Christ in the heavenly places [Eph. 2:6.], so that we do not by a bare hope only look to heaven, but are already posses of it in Christ, who is our head, who making full satisfaction for our sins in that earthly and bodily pledge, which he took for us, has now taken possession of heaven in our name. Jeremias Bastingius, An Exposition or Commentary Vpon the Catechisme of Christian Religion, which is taught in the Schooles and Churches both of the Low Countries, and of the Dominions of the Countie Palatine (Printed at London by Iohn Legatt, Printer to the University of Cambridge, 1614), 195-196. [Marginal references cited inline; some reformatting; some spelling modernized; and underlining mine.]

2) Surely he himself knew better then we how we were to be instructed unto salvation, and therefore meant to prevent this superstition, and gave us the Scripture [ 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:19.] , and the lively preaching of the Gospel to direct us in his service: Therein it is taught that Christ died to bear our curse upon the cross, to satisfy for our sins by the sacrifice of his body, and to wash them away by his blood, finally, to reconcile us unto God the Father: to what purpose then was it to have everywhere in Churches so many crosses set up, of word, of stone, of silver and gold: the Gospel, and in a manner crucified before our eyes, and by hearing and reading of the Scripture, and meditation in the word, and by the use of the Sacraments, we might learn more, than out of a thousand crosses of wood or stone. Jeremias Bastingius, An Exposition or Commentary Vpon the Catechisme of Christian Religion, which is taught in the Schooles and Churches both of the Low Countries, and of the Dominions of the Countie Palatine (Printed at London by Iohn Legatt, Printer to the University of Cambridge, 1614), 427. [Marginal references cited inline; some reformatting; some spelling modernized; and underlining mine.]

3) 2. There is ground therefore being laid of our humbling before God, Christ teaches how we may be delivered from the guiltiness of our sins and from the punishment, whereas we are by no means able to satisfy God ourselves’ to wit, by forgiveness alone, which is the pardon of God’s free mercy, when he himself does freely cross out these debts, that is, sins, and imputes not the punishment thereof unto us, taking no recompense at our hands, but of his own mercy making satisfaction to the himself in Christ, who did deliver himself once for all for a recompense, and shed his blood for us

Read the rest of this entry »

Jenkyn:

Obs. I. Grace whereby we are changed, much excels grace whereby we are only curbed. The sanctification wherewith the faithful were said to be adorned, was such as cured sin, as well as covered it; not a sanctification that did absconders, but abscinders; not only repress, but abolish corruption. The former, restraining grace, is a fruit only of general mercy over all God’s works, Psal. cxlv. 9; common to good and bad, binding the hand, leaving the heart free; withholding only from some one or few sins tying us now. and loosening us by and by; intended for the good of human society, doing no saving good to the receiver: in a word, only inhibiting the exercise of corruption for a time, without any real diminution of it; as the lions that spared Daniel were lions still, and had their ravenous disposition still, as appeared by their devouring others, although God stopped their mouths for that time. But this sanctifying grace with which the faithful are here adorned, as it springs from God’s special love in Christ, so it is proper to the elect, works upon every part in some measure, body soul, and spirit, abhors every sin, holds out to the end, and is intended for the salvation of the receiver. It not only inhibits the exercise of corruption, but mortifies, subdues, diminishes it, and works a red change; of a lion making a lamb; altering the natural disposition of the soul, and making a new man in every part and faculty.

William Jenkyn, An Exposition Upon the Epistle of Jude (London: Samuel Holdsworth, Paternoster Row, 1839), 12