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

Muller

The question at issue between Calvin and the later Reformed does not entail any debate over the value or merit of Christ’s death: virtually all were agreed that it was sufficient to pay the price for the sins of the whole world. Neither was the question at issue whether all human beings would actually be saved: all (including Arminius) were agreed that this was not to be the case. To make the point another way, if “atonement” is taken to mean the value or sufficiency of Christ’s death, no one taught limited atonement — and if atonement is taken to mean the actual salvation accomplished in particular persons, then no one taught unlimited atonement (except perhaps the much-reviled Samuel Huber).

Historically, framed in language understandable in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, there were two questions to be answered. First, the question posed by Arminius and answered at Dort: given the sufficiency of Christ’s death to pay the price for all sin, how ought one to understand the limitation of its efficacy to some? In Arminius’ view, the efficacy was limited by the choice of some persons to believe, others not to believe, and predestination was grounded in a divine foreknowledge of the choice. In the view of the Synod of Dort, the efficacy was limited according to the assumption of salvation by grace alone, to God’s elect. Calvin was quite clear on the point: the application or efficacy of Christ’s death was limited to the elect. And in this conclusion there was also accord among the later Reformed theologians.

Second, there was the question implied in variations of formulation among sixteenth-century Reformed writers and explicitly argued in a series of seventeenth century debates following the Synod of Dort, namely, whether the value of Christ’s death was hypothetically universal in efficacy. More simply put, was the value of Christ’s death such that, it would be sufficient for all sin if God had so intended — or was the value of Christ’s death such that if all would believe all would be saved. On this very specific question Calvin is, arguably, silent. He did not often mention the traditional sufficiency-efficiency formula; and he did not address the issue, posed by Amyraut, of a hypothetical or conditional decree of salvation for all who would believe, prior to the absolute decree to save the elect. He did frequently state, without further modification, that Christ expiated the sins of the world and that this “favor” is extended “indiscriminately to the whole human race.” Various of the later Reformed appealed to Calvin on both sides of the debate. (Only a very few writers of the seventeenth and eighteenth century argued that Christ’s death was sufficient payment only for the sins of the elect.) Later Reformed theology, then, is more specific on this particular point than Calvin had been — and arguably, his somewhat vague formulations point (or could be pointed) in several directions, as in fact can the formulae from the Synod of Dort.

Richard A. Muller, Was Calvin a Calvinist? Or, Did Calvin (or Anyone Else in the Early Modern Era) Plant the “TULIP”?, (pp., 9-10); http://www.calvin.edu/meeter/lectures/Richard%20Muller%20-%20Was%20Calvin%20a%20Calvinist.pdf (accessed 6 November 2009).

[Notes: 1) Muller’s point here supports and echoes my earlier comments here, namely: “Dort’s contention is against those who teach that Christ died for all men equally, such that he died for no man effectually or especially. Dort denies that proposition. Nowhere in Dort does one find a denial of an unlimited aspect to the expiation and redemption (as taught by the classic Patristic, Medieval and Reformation fathers). The theology of Luther, Zwingli, Bullinger, Musculus, Calvin, Vermigli and countless others is not precluded by Dort.” 2) We can now supplement that comment by noting Muller’s point that Dort’s dispute was over the efficacy of the expiation. 3) Thus both the Davenantian/Amyraldian and Owenic constructions (with their underlying theologies) of the Sufficiency-Efficiency formula are consistent with Dort. On this, see Muller’s other pertinent comments here.]

Truman:

The only colorable objection (that is not virtually answered in what I have said), that I can call to mind, is only from John 17.

[v]9. “I pray for them, I pray not for the world.” Therefore surely (say some), he would not shed his blood for the world, for whom he would not pray. But would any be at pains to read that chapter, he may see that Christ speaks of himself, what he did in that particular prayer at that time, and that particular prayer to verse 20, was only for the Apostles; or at the most for them that were then actually believers. And verse 20, he prays for them that should afterward believe through their word; and so all that he prayed for there were actually believers, or looked on as such; and the substance of the petitions there can agree to none else, as keeping them in truth and unity &c.; and there is not one word in that prayer for God to cause any to believe: so that we may as well argue he never prayed for the conversion of any, because he did not in that prayer, and so never shed his blood for the conversion of any. But can any think that Christ wept over Jerusalem, never prayed for it; or that there were none but the elect that crucified him, when he prayed for his crucifiers. May we not with greater reason argue contrary thus. Surely he did at other times, though not in this particular prayer, pray for the world since he shed his blood for it.  All other other objections are reducible to this common one, “That it would be no kindness to die so as to purchase any, but the elect that actually would believe, “That if they believe, and turn they shall live,” because none else have the natural power to turn, to perform the condition, but they that have he actually causes to turn, and so it would be to mock them. Ans. I grant if this was true, it would be but to mock, as to say to a lame man, “If thou will turn, I will give,” (let this lameness come which way i will), but you see men have the natural power to perform the condition, and though they will fall short of the benefit through their wickedness, it does not follow it was no kindness: and cannot any one see, it would as much follow according to your way, that, it would be no justice in God to punish men for not performing the gospel-condition.

Joseph Truman, A Discourse of Natural and Moral Impotency (London: Printed for Robert Clavel; and are to be sold at the Sign of the Peacock in St. Pauls Church yard, 1675), 185-186.   [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; and underlining mine.]

[Notes:  1) Shedd well says:

Again, in his sacerdotal prayer (John 17:2), our Lord represents the whole result of his mediatorial work as dependent upon election: “Thou hast given thy Son power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.” He also emphasizes the discrimination between the elect and non-elect, by saying (John 17:9): “I pray for them, I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me.” The Redeemer does not say that he never prayed for the whole sinful world of mankind; for he did this whenever he uttered the supplication, “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven;” but on that particular occasion he confines his supplications to a part of the world, namely, the elect. (Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 3:420-421.)

It would seem that both authors, in differing ways, have detected the unwarranted assumption that the prayer of John 17 suggests an exclusivity in and of itself. 2) And so, it should be pointed out that while it is true that Truman’s assertion regarding Jesus and his “prayer” for Jerusalem is suppositional, on the supposition, however, of the broader biblical presentation of God, his compassion, and the biblical data, this supposition seems perfectly reasonable.]

Truman:

Obj. 17. But it may be that God has decreed to, and so will, condemn me, do what I can.

Ans. Abhor such an opinion or thought. This, all sides disown: The utmost that is pretended by any moderate men, about this we are now speaking, is, “That there is a positive Decree to permit some to undo, or not hinder them from thus undoing themselves.” And this I shall not deny, but with them, that are better able to judge, to consider (since such conceptions help our understandings, that our imperfect notions may be in some measure rationally consistent), whether it be necessary to conceive, and so to affirm any such positive Decree to permit, whether a conception of a mere negation of a will in him to hinder, not a decreeing to hinder, be not enough: For you use to found this positive decree not to hinder, upon his fore-sight of what men would do if not hindered; now if they would do it without, and antecedently, to such a positive decree, what need is there? Nay is it not to conceive a vain positive act, to affirm such a positive decree to permit that which men would do without such a positive decree to permit, if he do not positively decree to hinder? But to let this pass, and suppose such a positive decree (he giving men means enough, and more than enough) not to go any further in hindering them from going in their impenitency.

How comes it about, that men make stops and exceptions about the decrees in God in reference to their soul-concernments, and never make such questions about them in other concerns, wherein learned men that differ about these things, seem better agreed about positive decrees? Men plow and sow, and never question whether God has decreed, whether there shall be any increase. When yet God has reserved to himself a liberty here, and may, for any thing they now, blast all their corn, and does sometimes (and therefore decreed it), notwithstanding their good husbandry. Yet none here says, “I will plow or sow: for if he have decreed a good crop, I shall have one, if not, I shall not have it.”  But this satisfies men here, “Though God, it may be, will blast all, do what I can; yet God uses to succeed diligent endeavors. But here, in the case in hand, you have far more reason to be consistent, for God has reserved to himself here no liberty to blast at all. All agree in this, that none shall fail, or not find who heartily seek, and so continue, nor shall so choose and pursue this better part, and miss of it: “He that comes to him, he will in no wise cast off.”

All agree, that there are no decrees but what are well consistent with the truth of those promises, and all notions of decrees really inconsistent with such promises are false. As also all those notions of decrees that are not consistent with his threatenings as he “He that repents not, shall perish.” But one may perceive how it comes about, that men fly to decrees here, and not in worldly concernments, but have a mind to go in their sins, and would fain find out some excuse for their sloth, and to lay the fault on God that they perish.

But it would be a wiser, and easier course, “To be making your calling and election sure,” than be making objections from such things as you do not understand, to hinder you. You in vain expect to be carried to Heaven, or to escape Hell without diligent endeavors of your own. Had those now in Heaven, continued while they were here on earth to make such objections, so as to be by them hindered from giving up themselves to the obedience of faith, if they had never come there.

Joseph Truman, A Discourse of Natural and Moral Impotency (London: Printed for Robert Clavel; and are to be sold at the Sign of the Peacock in St. Pauls Church yard, 1675), 205-208.   [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; italics original; and underlining mine.]

Prynne:

Yea, but now you object that; God “does seriously exhort even Reprobates themselves to Believe, and Repent, though he has determined to give no Faith, nor Repentance to them. Therefore, if they cannot Believe or Repent of themselves,” (as we affirm), “ God cannot but dissemble with them, because he exhorts them into that, which they of themselves,” (without his aid, since Faith is a special gift), “can never do, and which himself has irrevocably decreed, not to name them to perform.

To this I answer, that if God himself, who knows the Hearts, the Estates of all men, should tell any Reprobate from Heaven, that they are Reprobates, that he had irrevocably decreed, never to work any Faith, or Repentance in them; and yet should come to such in particular, seriously exhorting them to Believe, to Repent, that so they might be saved, there were then some show of mockery, of double dealing in God, and this objection might perchance stand good. But here the case is otherwise. For though God does often times seriously exhort, yea entreat, even such to Believe, to Repent, as he has for ever rejected in his secret purpose, yet here is no delusion, no deceit at all.

First, because God himself, who knows the Hearts, and States of all men, does never speak immediately from Heaven to any Reprobates in particular, no yet invite them to Repentance, but he does it mediately by his Ministers,  who being but frail mortal men, and having no special Revelation, no Commission from Heaven, to inform them who are Reprobates, but only the Revealed Will, and Word of God, which determines not particular men’s estates, can never positively resolve, whether the particular persons to whom they preach be Reprobates, yea or no, so that they tender Grace, and Mercy to them, not as to Reprobates, or castaways, but as to the chosen Saints of God, for ought they know. Secondly, because those Reprobates, to whom this Exhortation, this tender of Grace is made, can never fully satisfy nor resolve themselves, but they are Reprobates, since they were never privy to God’s counsel, so that for ought they know their whole life is a time of Grace to them. Since then it is never revealed to the Ministers that offer Grace, nor yet to those whom this Grace is tendered, that they are Reprobates, or that God has determined to bestow no Grace upon them, neither the Ministers, nor the Reprobates to whom the Gospel is Preached, can truly say that God does Cozen them, because that unto themselves, and all others, there is a possibility, yea a probability, that they may be saved, since they know not, whether they are peremptorily rejected of the Lord or no.

But you will object, “That God himself does certainly know, that these very Reprobates, neither will, nor can Repent, because he has decreed to work no Repentance in them, therefore God must needs delude them, though they cannot discover it.”

To this I answer, that if Reprobates themselves (whose case you ought not to argue before themselves complain, especially against the Lord himself, who is Just and Righteous in all his ways, though we out of the shallowness of or own capacity can not discover him), can never discern that God deludes them, then how can such who prosecute this objection charge the Lord with Cozenage, or equivocation in his dealings, when as men cannot discern it? What are they now translated into gods, that they can thus disclose this hidden, veiled mystery, which all the Saints, and Reprobates in the World cannot espy, since God’s judgments (which is the highest eulogy that men’s pens can yield them), are unsearchable, and his ways past finding out? Doubtless, if there be never a Reprobate in the World, who can truly say that God deals falsely with him, in desiring his conversion, when as he never did intend it, because he could not satisfy himself, whether he were a Reprobate, yea, or no, then those who make this strange objection, must cease to charge God with Collusion, till they are able for to tax him of, or trace him in it, and that in their own cases only, not in other men’s, who rest perchance contended God’s pleasure, and complain of his dealing.

Secondly, though God does certainly know, that Reprobates neither can, nor will Repent, yet he does not Deceive them, by inviting, exhorting, persuading them to Repentance, because as God does not invite them to Faith, or Repentance, as they are Reprobates, so his decree of Reprobation (which only leaves them in that lost estate, wherein it found them at the first, and puts them into no worse condition), is not the immediate cause of of their infidelity, Impenitency, or natural Imbecility, but their own corrupt, and sinful Natures, which God is not bound in Justice for to cure. Indeed, if God himself should purposely bind them hand and foot in the chains of sin, and then should bid them walk, or run on to him in a serious manner, he might now be thought for to delude them, but this God does not, he casts no rubs, no blocks into their way, but what they cast themselves if they come not when he invites them, it is not because God himself does not enable them, but because they have so ensnared themselves in sins, and trespasses, that they have disabled themselves to come unto him as they ought to do, yea and might have done, had they continued in their first estate, so that they must here accuse themselves, not God.

Thirdly, when God does offer Grace to men, he doth not immediately infuse his Grace into their hearts, but he works it in them by the use of means: now Reprobates, when as God tenders Grace unto them do always slight, neglect, and vilify the means by which he offers, and conveys his Grace; so that if they miss of Grace, (as they always doe:) they cannot lay the fault on God, or say, that he intended not to Convert them; but they must take the blame upon themselves alone; because if they had used the means with care, and Conscience as they ought, and done that which was requisite on their parts; God would have wrought effectually by his Spirit in their hearts, for ought they could tell, or think to the contrary.

Fourthly, when God doth seriously invite us to Repentance, and true saving Faith; he doth not always peremptorily promise, much less resolve to work this Faith, and Repentance in our hearts, (for then they should be always wrought effectually in us, because God’s purposed,  God’s resolved Will, is always executed, and cannot be resisted:) but he does only seriously declare, what things he doth approve, and require in us, and what course wee ourselves must take, if we will be saved: A King may seriously wish and desire, that such a Subject of his were a Rich, or Honorable person; and with all inform him of the way and means to purchase Wealth and Honor; but yet he may not purposely resolve to make him such a one; God doth earnestly wish, Command, and desire, that all men should repent, and turn unto him, and that none should offend, or sin against him; but yet he hath not eternally purposed to cause them to repent, or to enable them to convert, and not to sin: for most men go on in sin, without repentance: in many things we offend all; and there is no man that lives; and sins not: God may desire something in his revealed Will, which he hath not decreed to effect in his secret Will: he desires not the death of a sinner, but rather that he should repent, and live; yet sinners always die in sin, without repentance: He desires, that all men should be saved, and that none should perish; yet we know, that few are saved and that most men perish: Since therefore God may command, desire, and require something in his revealed Will, which he hath not absolutely decreed to effect in his hidden Will; it follows not, that God doth therefore resolve to work effectually by his Grace in Reprobates, when as he offers means of Grace unto them: and so he mocks them not.

William Prynne, God, No Imposter, nor Delvder. Or, An answer to a Popish and Arminian Cavill, in the defence of Free-Will, and vniversall Grace; wherein Gods tender of Grace by the outward Ministry of the Gospell, to Reprobates who neither doe, nor can receive it; is vindicated from those aspersions of equivocation, falsitie, and collusion, which some by way of Objection, cast upon it ([London]: 1630), 4-8. [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; marginal side-references not included; italics original; and underlining mine.]

Credit to Tony for the the find.

Truman:

1) Again, when God said, Mal. 1:2, 3, “I have loved you, says the Lord, yet you say ‘Wherein has thou loved us?’ ‘was not Esau Jacob’s brother,’ says the Lord? yet I loved Jacob, and hated Esau:” that is, I preferred Jacob before Esau. God spoke this to upbraid the Jews with unthankfulness, and to move them to gratitude, to love and honor Him as a Father. But one might have replied here according to some, “This giving to him and us his posterity greater mercies than to Esau, was not to love him and us, his posterity, more than Esau and his posterity, though you call it so; and so we can say for all this, “Wherein hast thou loved us, more than Esau and his posterity?” or else, this was not from any special love to him and us, without respect to any special thing in him or us, that would not have been to Esau and his posterity, if as good as he or we; and therefore it does not oblige us to any special obedience and thankfulness, more than to them.

They might have defended themselves, that their ingratitude was no more culpable than that of the Edomites, had they been of some men’s opinion, thus: There is only a two-fold love or good-will, antecedent Love, and consequent Love, or good-will (which is a distinction, Ancient and of good use, and ought to be taken notice of, to keep our notions clear; though I dislike their saying that the Antecedent love is equal to all). The antecedent love is that which has no respect to any good in men, but does good to all men, without respect to any good in them; now this, say they is equal to all men alike. I grant it, to all men, but am proving, it is not equal to all men.

Secondly, the Consequent Love, called also Amor justitia, being according to a Rule and Law; which Consequent Love, or Love of justification, is Conditional, and has effectually a respect to some good thing in men, being by, and according to a Law, the Gospel Rule. Now this, say they is equal to all men alike, but where their goodness or wickedness occasion’s the difference. And I readily grant this as apparent, That this Consequent Love is to all men alike, as to the main and substance of it, and the effects of it. as they perform the condition or not; which is no more but this, “He that is Holy, and so continues, shall not perish, but have everlasting Life, be he who he will, without any respect of Persons;” and, “He that is more Holy shall be more Happy; even as he that is wicked, and so continues, shall be miserable; and he that is more wicked, more miserable, without any exception of persons whatsoever,” as it is said Acts 10:34, “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons, but in every Nation, he that fears him, and works Righteousness, is accepted of him.”    Joseph Truman, A Discourse of Natural and Moral Impotency (London: Printed for Robert Clavel; and are to be sold at the Sign of the Peacock in St. Pauls Church yard, 1675), 98-100.   [Some reformatting; Latin and Greek marginal side-references not included; some pagination irregular; some spelling modernized; italics original; and underlining mine.]

Read the rest of this entry »