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.]

Carson:

16. As the new birth, the acquisition of eternal life, has been grounded in the ‘lifting up’ of the Son (w. 14-15), so also that ‘lifting up, the climax of the Son’s mission, is itself grounded in the love of God. The mission of the Son and its consequences is the theme of this paragraph, but John begins by insisting that the Son’s mission was itself the consequence of God’s love. The Greek construction behind so loved that he gave his one and only Son (houtos plus hoste plus the indicative instead of the infinitive) emphasizes the intensity of the love, and insists that the envisaged consequence really did ensue;’ the words ‘his one and only Son’ (cf. notes on 1:14) stress the greatness of the gift. The Father gave his best, his unique and beloved Son (cf. Rom. 8:32).

Both the verb ‘to love’ (agapao) and the noun ‘love’ (agape) occur much more frequently in chs. 13 – 17 than anywhere else in the Fourth Gospel, reflecting the fact that John devotes special attention to the love relationships amongst the Father, the Son and the disciples. The Father loves the Son (3:35; 10:17; 15:9-10; 17:2.%24, 26; using another verb, 5:20), the Son loves the Father (14:31); Jesus loves his own, his true disciples (11:5; 13:1, 33, 34; 14:21; 15:9-10, 12; 21:7, 20), and they must love him (14:15, 21, 23f., 28; 21:15-26). They must also love one another (13:34-35; 15:12-13, 17; 17:26). Sometimes John speaks of the Father’s love for the disciples (14:21, 23; 17:23), but more frequently the Father’s love for the disciples is mediated through his Son. The world, fallen and rebellious human beings in general, does not and cannot love God (3:19; 5:42; 8:42).

From this pattern of relationships it is clear that there is nothing in the words agapao and agape themselves to suggest that the love of which John speaks is invariably spontaneous, self-generated, without reference to the loved one. John ‘uses the same words both for God’s spontaneous, gracious, love for men, and also for the responsive relation of the disciple to God, to which man is moved not by free unmerited favour to God (which would be impossible), but by a sense of God’s favour to him,’ (Barrett, p. 215). This does not mean that for John there is no such thing as spontaneous, self-generated love, only that it is not tied to a single word-group. More than any New Testament writer, John develops a theology of the love relations between the Father and the Son, and makes it clear that, as applied to human beings, the love of God is not the consequence of their loveliness but of the sublime truth that ‘God is love’ (1 Jn. 4:16).

From this survey it is clear that it is atypical for John to speak of God’s love for the world, but this truth is therefore made to stand out as all the more wonderful. Jews were familiar with the truth that God loved the children of Israel; here God’s love is not restricted by race. Even so, God’s love is to be admired not because the world is so big and includes so many people, but because the world is so bad: that is the customary connotation of kosmos (‘world’; cf. notes on 1:9). The world is so wicked that John elsewhere forbids Christians to love it or anything in it (1 Jn. 2:15-17). There is no contradiction between this prohibition and the fact that God does love it. Christians are not to love the world with the selfish love of participation; God loves the world with the self-less, costly love of redemption.

Read the rest of this entry »

Arrowsmith

5. A third branch of divine goodness is long-suffering; whereby God hath been pleased to put a notable difference between angels that fell, and the fallen sons of Adam. Of them Peter saith, “God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment.” This was quick and speedy work. But the Lord (saith the same apostle,) “is long-suffering to us-ward.” He exercises much patience, very much, even towards all, though vessels of wrath. For so Paul, “What if God willing to shew his wrath and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering, the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction?” How profane was the old world? How wicked a place was Jericho? yet was he one hundred and twenty years in warning those of that age, before he brought the deluge upon them: and he that made the world in six, was seven days in destroying that one city. The great doctor of the Gentiles was not much more than thirty years old, when God converted him; yet we find him looking at this as infinite patience, as all long-suffering, that he was borne with so long. “I obtained mercy (saith he) that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all long-suffering.” How sensible then ought they to be of this attribute, with whom God hath born forty, fifty, sixty years, and still continues to cry unto, as it is in Habakkuk, “Woe unto him that increases that which is not his: How long?” as in Jeremiah, “O Jerusalem, wash thine heart from wickedness, that thou mayest be saved: How long shall thy vain thoughts lodge within thee?” And again, “Woe unto thee, O Jerusalem, wilt thou not be made clean? When shall it once be.” All which places declare sufficiently that the long-suffering God doth in a manner long to see our conversion to him.

6. And that indeed is the most proper use we can make hereof according to Paul’s expostulation, “Despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance, and long-suffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance.” Verily, we cannot meet on this side of hell, with a worse temper of spirit than that which inclines a sinner to despise the forbearance of God, and to kick against the bowels of his goodness…”

John Arrowsmith, Armilla Catechetica: A Chain of Principles; or, An Orderly Concatenation of Theological Principles and Excercitations, Wherein the Chief Heads of Christian Religion are Asserted and Improved (Edinburgh: Thomas Turnbull, 1822), 130-132.

Credit to Tony for the find.