Christ as the electing God, the Elect One and the One in whom we were elected

Been tying to make an assault on some as yet unread books on my shelves. I've not bought anything new for a while, no books to review and no lectures to prepare for. At least for a bit. I got hold of this one must have been a couple of years ago. When I was thinking about election in Christ in the writings of Thomas Goodwin (see here). If ever I do some more degree level studies, I'd like to do some work on election in Christ. Don't know whether that'll ever happen. 

Anyway, Muller is an important interpreter of Calvin's thought and has gone to a lot of trouble to trace the lines of continuity between Calvin and the Reformed Orthodox tradition that followed in his wake. Basically, if you think Calvin was a 'pure biblical theologian' and that the Reformed Orthodox were little better than a bunch of hair-splitting scholastics, you need a good dose of Muller to set you straight.

As you can see from the title, the subject under consideration is Christ and the decree. In the first chapter, Muller expertly sets out Calvin's teaching on the subject. It's a marvel of biblical insight and conceptual clarity. Muller gives special attention to the interplay between the Reformer's thought on the person of Christ and the divine decree. 

The Son as God is author of the decree to save together with the Father and the Holy Spirit. In their internal will as well as in their external actions, the persons of the Trinity are undivided. In that triune decree the Son is chosen to carry out the work of mediator. As the Elect One he will take human nature to redeem those who were chosen in him. Muller explains, "Christ stands as mediator, between God and man but also between the decree and its execution and must somehow be subordinate to the decree." (p. 36). The eternal decree is fulfilled in time through Christ's incarnation and saving work. Calvin is clear that the Son was subordinate to the decree only in as much as he was mediator who would take on flesh, not as God, per se. Muller further summarises Calvin's thought,

As mediator Christ is subordinate to the decree while as Son of God he is one with the Father and in no way subordinate. The Son of God stands behind the decree while the Son as mediator is executor of the decree. The relationship between the distinction concerning the decree and its execution and the extra calvinisticum now becomes clear. In the execution of the decree or work of salvation, the Son is wholly given, in subordination to the eternal plan, as mediator. But the Son as God a se ipso cannot be wholly contained in the flesh or in any way subsumed under the execution of the decree. (p. 38)

Yes, Christ was designated the Elect One in whom we were elected to salvation, but he was never less than the electing God, homoousios with the Father and united with him in saving purpose. The value of Calvin's Christocentric doctrine of election is that his account directs the believer to Christ as the 'mirror of our election'. We don't have to try and pry into God's hidden decree to see whether we are elect. We simply look to Christ. He is the Elect One in whom we were chosen. If we are in him now by faith, then we were graciously elected in him in eternity, Acts 13:48. The eternal decree; its execution in time, and its application in the experience of the believer are in, through and by Christ. He is all in all. 

Without the gospel by John Calvin

Without the gospel everything is useless and vain;

without the gospel we are not Christians;

without the gospel all riches is poverty,

all wisdom folly before God;

strength is weakness,

and all the justice of man is under the condemnation of God.

But by the knowledge of the gospel we are made children of God,

brothers of Jesus Christ,

fellow townsmen with the saints,

citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven,

heirs of God with Jesus Christ,

by whom the poor are made rich,

the weak strong,

the fools wise,

the sinner justified,

the desolate comforted,

the doubting sure,

and slaves free.

It is the power of God for the salvation of all those who believe …

It follows that every good thing we could think or desire is to be found in this same Jesus Christ alone.

For, he was sold, to buy us back;

captive, to deliver us;

condemned, to absolve us;

he was made a curse for our blessing,

sin offering for our righteousness;

marred that we may be made fair;

he died for our life;

so that by him fury is made gentle,

wrath appeased,

darkness turned into light,

fear reassured,

despisal despised,

debt canceled,

labour lightened,

sadness made merry,

misfortune made fortunate,

difficulty easy,

disorder ordered,

division united,

 ignominy ennobled,

 rebellion subjected,

intimidation intimidated,

ambush uncovered,

assaults assailed,

force forced back,

combat combated,

war warred against,

vengeance avenged,

torment tormented,

damnation damned,

the abyss sunk into the abyss,

hell transfixed,

death dead,

mortality made immortal.

In short, mercy has swallowed up all misery, and goodness all misfortune.

For all these things which were to be the weapons of the devil in his battle against us, and the sting of death to pierce us, are turned for us into exercises which we can turn to our profit. If we are able to boast with the apostle, saying, O hell, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting? it is because by the Spirit of Christ promised to the elect, we live no longer, but Christ lives in us; and we are by the same Spirit seated among those who are in heaven, so that for us the world is no more, even while our conversation is in it; but we are content in all things, whether country, place, condition, clothing, meat, and all such things. And we are comforted in tribulation, joyful in sorrow, glorying under vituperation, abounding in poverty, warmed in our nakedness, patient amongst evils, living in death. This is what we should in short seek in the whole of Scripture: truly to know Jesus Christ, and the infinite riches that are comprised in him and are offered to us by him from God the Father.” 

From John Calvin’s preface to Pierre Robert Olivétan’s 1534 translation of the New Testament. Versified by GD.

Anselm on faith seeking understanding of the Trinity

The other week I posted some thoughts on Anselm's treatment of God's justice and mercy in his Proslogion (here). I mentioned that I also wanted say something about his thinking on the Trinity in the same work. I thought it might be interesting to contrast Anselm's approach to the subject with that of John Calvin in the Institutes (Book I:XIII). Like Anselm, the Reformer begins with the essential unity of God and then discusses his tripersonality. But even here, methodological differences are evident. Anselm cites Scripture in the Proslogion, and the God who is 'something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought' is clearly the God of the Bible. But his work is not sufficiently grounded in the self-revelation of God in Holy Scripture. Human reason rather than divine revelation to the fore as Anselm elaborates his argument for the existence of God.

What Calvin has to say both on the the essence of God and his triunity is more explicitly rooted in the Scripture. He has less faith in the power of human reason to explore the divine essence. What the Bible says regarding the immensity and spirituality of God's essence "checks the audacity of the human mind" (I:XIII:1). This is quite unlike Anselm's approach in the Monologion, a meditation on God's essence where "nothing whatever be argued on the basis of the authority of Scripture, but [by] the constraints of reason" (Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works, OUP, 2008, p. 5). While Calvin believed that reason and philosophy had a place in theological work, he would not have shared Anselm's confidence in human thought processes to search out the divine. For him faith seeks understanding in the Bible not in elaborately constructed arguments that sit loose with Scripture. 

In the Monologion, Anselm devotes a large number of sections to the Trinity (29-66). He seeks to explore the doctrine in accordance with "the constraints of reason". However, he has to cheat a little. Were Anselm's thinking not already informed by biblical revelation, he would have known that the One God exists in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. While the doctrine of the Trinity is not irrational, it could not have been discovered by the human mind apart from Scripture. 

The Proslogion devotes only one section to the Trinity (23). In this brief compass Anselm offers a distillation of his teaching on the triunity of God that was more fully developed in the Monologion. His handling of the subject is highly influenced by Augustine. The Church Father posited that in the One God there is Lover (the Father) Loved (the Son) and Love (the Holy Spirit). Similarly, Anselm argues that God's Word is God speaking. The Word therefore cannot be anything less than God. As God's essence is simple, nothing can be born from God that is not God.  The Love that proceeds to and from the Father and the Son/Word is the Holy Spirit. The Spirit  is not different in being from the Father and the Son, as he proceeds from the simple unity of the divine essence. 

Anselm's account of the doctrine of the Trinity owes more to Augustine's psychological model (God as Lover/Loved/Love) than biblical revelation. As a result Anselm offers a rather speculative account of the Trinity, especially in the Monologion. The actions of the Trinue God in the drama of redemption as disclosed in Holy Scripture are not given a determinative enough role in theologian's treatment of this most important teaching. 

This is exactly the point where Calvin  differs from Anselm. The Reformer does not shy away from the use of philosophical terminology such as 'person', and 'essence' in formulating his doctrine, but he wants to rein in speculation as much as possible. He does not begin with the simple divine essence and posit that God's Word must be God and that the Love between God and the Word must also be divine. He appeals to divine revelation, "While he proclaims his unity, he distinctly sets it before us as existing in three persons" (I:XIII:2). The tripersonality of God is not arrived at by a process of reasoning, 'he proclaims...he distinctly sets it before us.'  And God reveals this truth about himself because he does not simply want us to believe that there is a divine being, even One who is 'something-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought', but that we might know him personally. "These we must hold [God's unity and three persons], unless the bare and empty name of Deity merely flutter in our brain without any genuine knowledge." (I:XIII:2). 

Calvin justifies the use of extrabiblical terms in with reference the doctrine of the Trinity in order to safeguard the meaning of biblical truth which was under attack from heretics. But he would much rather a minimalist approach that sticks as closely to the language of Scripture as possible. "I wish, indeed, that such names were buried, provided all would concur in the belief that Father, Son and Spirit, are one God, and yet that the Son is is not the Father, nor the Spirit the Son, but each has his peculiar subsistence." (I:XIII:5). 

Notwithstanding, Calvin is insistent that the word 'person' is appropriately used of the Three. This is important, because although Anselm also speaks of one God in three persons, his account of the intertrinitatian relations tends to undermine the distinct personhood of the Son and the Spirit. As noted earlier, he refers to the Word/Son as God's truth, which cannot be anything other than God, and the Spirit as the Love that proceeds from the Father and the Son. This is to confuse attributes and persons. The Son is not simply God's truth. He is a person with the same essence as  the Father, sharing all the attributes of his divine being. The Spirit is a person who loves the Father and the Son and is loved by them, not merely the Love that proceeds from the Father and the Son. Anselm knows this saying, "whatever each is singly, that the whole Trinity is together, Father, Son and Holy Spirit" (p. 100). He was certainly no modalist, but his Augustinian psychological model of the Trinity does not do justice to the full personhood of the Son and Spirit. That failing can in part be traced to the fact that he seeks to deduce the three persons from the simple divine essence rather than giving proper attention to the communicative action of the triune God disclosed in the Scriptures. Calvin is more in tune with the trinitarian dimensions of the drama of redemption, "But as God has manifested himself more clearly by the advent of Christ, so he has made himself more familiarly known in three persons." (I:XIII: 16). The Reformer cites the baptismal formula issued by Christ is a case in point (Matthew 28:19). 

Another thing. In the Monologion, Anselm claims that "The Son...has his essence from the Father as well as having the same essence as the Father." (p. 58). It is proper that the Father as supreme spirit begets the Son and that the Son was begotten of him (p. 52). But this introduces an element of subordination into Anselm's doctrine of the Trinity. The Father's essence was unbegotten and therefore without origin or derivation, but the Son's essence was derived from the Father. Calvin will have none of this. He dismissed as "an absurd fiction" (I:XIII:29) the more speculative scholastic teaching on the eternal generation of the Son. Instead, he proposed that "the Godhead is absolutely of itself [autotheos]. And hence also we hold that the Son, regarded as God, without reference to his person, is also of himself [autotheos]; though we also say that, regarded as Son, he is of the Father. Thus his essence is without beginning, while his person has its beginning in God". (I:XIII:25). He is the only begotten Son of the Father, but he is God because he is God. According to B. B. Warfield with Calvin's "firm and unwavering assertion of the autotheos of the Son...the  homoousios of the Nicene Fathers at last came into its full right, and became in its fullest sense the hinge of the doctrine". (Calvin's Doctrine of the Trinity, in Calvin and Augustine. p. 283 & 284, P&R, 1980).

Much work has been done in recent decades to show that it is simplistic to drive a wedge between the 'speculative scholasticism' of the Medieval Church and the 'pure biblical theology' of the Reformers. Calvin drew on the insights of scholastic theology, while deprecating its excesses. But Calvin's handling of the doctrine of the Trinity seems a world away from that of Anselm. He has less confidence in the power of human reason and his teaching is more explicitly shaped by the drama of redemption as revealed in Holy Scripture. He is respectful of the theological heritage of the Church, but he does not simply repeat Augustine's psychological 'Lover, Loved and Love' account of the Trinity. He offers a corrective to the subordinationist strain in Western theology, with his emphasis on the autotheistic  character  of the Son's divine essence. He recognises an order of persons in the Trinity, but this is not based on derivation of essence, but the personal relations of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. 

God has revealed himself as a Trinity in order to bring his people into union and communion with himself. True knowledge of God in his three persons does not 'flutter in our brain'. We believe in order to understand. And understanding should lead to the worship our triune Creator, Redeemer and Perfecter. In in the words of Gregory of Nazinus that 'vastly delighted' Calvin,

No sooner do I conceive of the One than I am illumined by the Splendour of the Three; no sooner do I distinguish Them than I am carried back to the One. When I think of any One of the Three I think of Him as the Whole, and my eyes are filled, and the greater part of what I am thinking of escapes me. I cannot grasp the greatness of That One so as to attribute a greater greatness to the Rest. When I contemplate the Three together, I see but one torch, and cannot divide or measure out the Undivided Light. (Gregory of Nazianzus' (ca. 330-391) Orations 40.41)

Thomas Goodwin on election in Christ: what it is

See here and here for parts one and two of this series that has been left hanging in the air for some months. 

Having ruled out several deficient ways of understanding the believer's election in Christ, Goodwin proceeds to give his positive exposition of the subject. 

1. Christ, the federal head of the elect 

The Puritan divine construes election in Christ in federal terms. He does not use the language of "federal headship" that is often found later Reformed theology, but his treatment has a distinct federal flavour. "Jesus Christ in election is head of the elect. He was from the first considered and ordained by God as a Common Person, to represent us." (p. 70, Exposition of Ephesians: Chapter 1 to 2:10). Goodwin draws an analogy between Adam and Christ. All humanity were created in Adam. As the first man (1 Corinthians 15:47), Adam acted in a representative capacity. "Thus in choosing Christ God looked on him as a Common Person, as a second Adam, and chose us in him." (p. 71). But the fact that elect were chosen in Christ as a 'Common Person' does not mean that God's people were not chosen individually and personally. "God did not choose in the general... he knoweth the very persons fully and particularly; yea and distinctly viewed them when he elected them. And notwithstanding he thus chose us as distinct persons from Christ, yet still our election is in Christ. (p. 71). 

It is because the Son of God was chosen as Head of the elect in eternity that he assumed our nature and came to redeem the people of God in the fullness of time. But even prior to the incarnation Christ acted as Mediator of the covenant of grace. He was a Common Person to the fathers under the Old Testament, forgiving their sins by virtue of the atonement he would one day perform on their behalf (p. 73). 

Election in Christ is the foundation of the covenant of grace. "And so a covenant was struck between God and us, through Christ's representing us, as the covenant of works was between God and us considered in Adam. And thence it is that Christ, by the prophet Isaiah is called 'our covenant'." (p. 75). That believer's election is in Christ guarantees they will  receive the blessings of the covenant. Goodwin cites Paul's words in 2 Timothy 1:9, 'the grace that was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.' If God chose his people in themselves, the apostle could have written that he purposed to give them grace before the world began. But Paul says that grace was actually given to the elect in Christ Jesus, as he stands as a 'Common Person' representing his people who are chosen in him. "God in the act of choosing us gave us to Christ, and in giving us to Christ he chose us." (p. 74). 

2. The order of election 

According to Goodwin, Christ was chosen first, and we in him. "Jesus Christ was the Head of election, and of the elect of God; and so in order of nature first, though in order of time we were elected in him. In the womb of election he, the Head came out first, and then we, the members." (p. 74). Note that in saying that Christ was chosen first and we in him, Goodwin is careful to say that he is speaking of an order of nature rather than time. This is because the expositor is mindful that Paul teaches that we were chosen in Christ "before the foundation of the world" (Ephesians 1:4), which Goodwin takes to mean "from eternity" (p. 77). He reasons, "Before the world was there was nothing but eternity. If you look past the world, you put your head up into eternity." (p. 77). Goodwin tentatively construes Paul's words in a slightly supralapsarian sense, agreeing with those who understood the words "before the foundation of the world" to refer to the order of God's decrees, not simply to the act of creation. He sees this as a further evidence of God's love for his elect, that "he chose you before he purposed the world; he preferred you to all the world." (p. 78). The seventeenth century Puritan almost anticipates modern day multiverse theory saying, "Value God and his love more than all the world, though there were millions of them." (p. 79). This might seem like rather abstract theologizing, but as ever with the Puritans, Goodwin's  theology is put to practical use,

Fear not the ruin of kingdoms, not of the world, for your being depends not on either of them; God chose you before all worlds. Let kingdoms totter, and mountains be thrown in the midst of the sea, 'we have a kingdom that cannot be shaken,' Heb. xii.28. (p. 80).

3. Chosen in him

And so Thomas Goodwin offers a federal explanation of election in Christ. Jesus is not the meritorious cause of our election. God chose his people simply out of love and free grace. But neither is union with Christ merely the goal of election. The Puritan would not have agreed with the words of Louis Berkhof, that Christ was merely  'the mediate cause of the realisation of election' (see here). The elect were chosen in Christ as a Common Person, the second Adam, the Head of God's new humanity who cannot be considered, even in the predestinating decree of God apart from Christ or outside of Christ, "For God chose you in him; the being you had was in him before the world was." (p. 77). As Herman Bavinck put it,

It is not that Christ was thereby the ground and foundation of election; but the election of the church is the very first benefit bestowed on the church; and even this benefit already occurred in union with Christ, and above all it has its goal, not as its foundation, that all other benefits - rebirth, faith and so forth - will be imparted to the church by Christ. In this sense, then, the election of Christ logically precedes our own. (Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 2, p. 404) 

Besides a certain "holy Baines" (p. 70) or "Mr. Baines" (p. 78) Goodwin refrains from citing sources for his views on election in Christ. But what he says is certainly in keeping with the teaching of John Calvin. Admittedly, Goodwin's highly developed federalist construction is not found in the Reformer, but Calvin insisted that we are not chosen in ourselves, to the end that we might be united to Christ, but we are loved and elected in him. Hence it is foolish, harmful and dangerous to contemplate election apart from Christ. He is the mirror of our election,

But if we are elected in him, we cannot find the certainty of our election in ourselves; and not even in God the Father, if we look at him apart from the Son. Christ, then, is the mirror in which we ought, and in which, without deception, we may contemplate our election. For since it is into his body that the Father has decreed to ingraft those whom from eternity he wished to be his, that he may regard as sons all whom he acknowledges to be his members, if we are in communion with Christ, we have proof sufficiently clear and strong that we are written in the Book of Life. (The Institutes of the Christian Religion III:24:5). 

Robert Letham, who  is critical of Berkhof's stance on election in Christ argues, "Thus, our entire salvation is received in Christ, election included. Union with Christ is existent at the point of our election in eternity." (The Work of Christ, Robert Letham, IVP, 1993, p. 55-56). Salvation is by grace, through faith (Ephesians 2:8). Prior to faith in Christ a person remains subject to the wrath of God upon their sin (Ephesians 2:3 cf. John 3:36). But the gift of faith itself is granted by virtue of the people of God being chosen in Christ (Ephesians 1:3-4). Goodwin comments, "if all be given us in Christ, then faith also [is given us], as we are considered already chosen in Christ" (p. 66).

The Puritan expositor's Christocentric doctrine of election is grounded in sound biblical exegesis and is consistent with the best insights of Reformed theology. It is deeply pastoral, pointing the believer to Christ in whom we are chosen, rather than leaving us mystified and unsure in the face of God's inscrutable decree. Above all, Goodwin gives due honour to the God, who gave us grace in Christ Jesus before the world was made. He calls us to love the electing God more than a million worlds.

In the next and concluding post in this series I plan to consider what Goodwin has to say on God's purpose in electing his people in Christ. 

The Secret Providence of God by John Calvin

The Secret Providence of God,

John Calvin, Edited by Paul Helm,

Crossway Books, 2010, 125pp

Sebastian Castellio was once a friend and supporter of John Calvin. For a time the two men worked together in Geneva. But they drifted apart both in terms of their friendship and also theologically. Castellio especially came to dislike Calvin's teaching on the absolute sovereignty of God. He released an open letter criticising what Calvin had written on the subject. The letter took the form of fourteen articles on predestination supposedly drawn from Calvin's works, together with a point-by-point rebuttal of the Reformer's views. Calvin was stung into action on reading Castellio's manuscript. He entered the fray to defend his teaching on the providence of God. This work offers a fresh translation of Castellio's missive and John Calvin's response. 

Calvin argues his case with vigour and clarity, constantly appealing to the teaching of Scripture in support of his views. Calvin's position was not idiosyncratic. The Reformer saw the issues clearly because he stood on the shoulders of Augustine. He repeatedly cites the views of the Church Father over and against his opponent. Accordingly, Calvin insists on both the absolute sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man for his sin. He makes a distinction between the revealed will of God, which man is bound to obey and his secret will by which God governs even the sinful actions of men (Deuteronomy 29:29). But this does not mean that God is conflicted, as in all things he decrees that which is wise, just and good.  

The Reformer takes no prisoners when it comes to denouncing Castellio's disingenuous calumnies, "Now you see, you dog, what you accomplish by your violent barking (p. 64).  He raises the matter of Castellio's alleged theft of firewood when he lived in Geneva to illustrate that when people sin they do so willingly and are therefore responsible for their actions (p. 112). He concludes by likening Castellio to Shimei who cursed David when he was on the run from Absalom. Like David, Calvin could only bear up under Catellio's onslaught by taking refuge in the secret providence of God. Calvin wrote with such passion partly because he was irked by Castellio's deliberate caricaturing of his views, but his great concern was to vindicate the sovereignty of God as attested in Holy Scripture. 

Readers might wonder what exactly is the relevance of this long-forgotten theological spat to our situation today. Well, the views similar to those somewhat crudely advocated by Castellio have not gone away. He reasoned that if God is absolutely sovereign, with his will governing all things, then he must be responsible for the sinful conduct of men. He summarises Calvin's teaching under Article 4, as saying, All the crimes that have been accomplished by any man are the good and just works of God (p.43). Castellio would have it that God permits sin in deference to man's freedom, but not that he willingly permits sin for his own secret and wise purposes. The calumniator's views anticipate the teaching of Jacob Arminius. The seeds he planted find their fruition in Open Theism, which has been finding inroads in contemporary Evangelical circles. Calvin's robust response to Castellio will put iron into the veins of today's theologically anaemic Evangelicalism. 

John Calvin on the difference between what a text says and what may be said about a text

In preparing to preach on Genesis 22, where Abraham was commanded by God to sacrifice his son Isaac on  Mount Moriah, I consulted numerous commentaries on Genesis. But I also had a glance at John Calvin's commentary on Hebrews 11:17-19. Commenting on Hebrews 11:19, Calvin mentions the opinions of  other interpreters of the text,

However, I do not dislike what some say, who think that our flesh, which is subject to death, is set forth in the ram which was substituted for Isaac. I also allow that to be true which some have taught, that this sacrifice was a representation of Christ.

But, he goes on to say that his concern as a commentator is not to say what might be said about the text, but to explain what the text itself says,

I have now to state what the Apostle meant, not what may in truth be said; and the real meaning here, as I think, is, that Abraham did not receive his Son otherwise than if he had been restored from death to new life.

Should we not also make a similar distinction in our preaching between the strict grammatico-historical meaning of a text and the broad redemptive-historical significance of the passage under consideration? Not that we focus on the one at the expense of the other, but that we be careful not to dump the whole weight of developed biblical revelation on a earlier text of Scripture. Doing so would be to ignore the progressive character of Holy Scripture.

Take Genesis 22 as a case in point. The burden of the passage is not primarily about Jesus' substitutionary atoning death. Rather, it concerns the Lord testing Abraham's faith, Genesis 22:1, the Lord's provision of a ram in place of Isaac Genesis 22:12-14, and the Lord's renewal of the covenant promises, Genesis 22:15-18. In essence, that is what the text says.

But there is more that might be properly said about the text than that. Isaac was Abraham's "seed" in whom the nations would be blessed, (Genesis 21:12, 17:19). The "seed" promise was originally intimated in Genesis 3:15. The "seed" of the woman would defeat the "seed" of the serpent. That saving "seed" will come from Abraham's line, Genesis 22:18. The promise is further narrowed down to one of king David's descendents, 2 Samuel 7:12-13. Jesus is identified with the line of Abraham and David in Matthew 1:1-17. Paul describes Jesus as the "seed of Abraham" in Galatians 3:16 and the "seed of David" in Romans 1:2-4 and 2 Timothy 2:8.

Abraham was called to sacrifice his "seed", although he believed that God would raise him from the dead, Genesis 22:5 cf. Hebrews 11:17-19. However, the Lord provided a ram in place of Isaac, his only son. In the case of Christ, God did not spare him, but delivered him up for us all and then raised him from the dead (Romans 8:32-34). Paul's language in Romans 8:32 (cf. Genesis 22:16), plus the reference to God's provision makes it clear that the apostle is alluding to Abraham and Isaac. See also the way in which Peter weaves together an intertexual web around the death and resurrection of Christ and his identity as the "seed of Abraham", Acts 3:13-15, 25-26. (Note a similar pattern of thought in Acts 13:16-30).

Genesis 22 in its pure grammatico-historical meaning does not say that Jesus Christ is the "seed" who died and rose again to remove God's curse from a fallen world and bring blessing to the nations (Galatians 3:13-14). But the text should not be read in isolation. Earlier revelation needs to be taken into account (i.e. Genesis 3:15) and the contribution of Genesis 22 to redemptive-historical themes unfolded progressively in Scripture needs to be traced out (i.e. Galatians 3:16, 29). We must neither deposit on Genesis 22 the full weight of  the New Testament's revelation of Jesus, neither should we be blind to the witness of that text to Christ.

As Augustine pointed out with regard to the relationship between the Testaments, "The New is in the Old concealed and the Old is in the New revealed." After all, as Jesus said, Abraham saw his day and rejoiced, John 8:56. We must preach what the the Old Testament says, explaining the grammatico-historical of texts and declare what might be properly said concerning the text's testimony to Jesus. In other words we must follow the the exegetical model laid down for us by Christ and the apostles, Luke 24:44, Acts 17:2-3.

Calvin on the sum of our salvation in Christ

When we see that the whole sum of our salvation, 
and every single part of it, are comprehended in Christ, 
we must beware of deriving even the minutes portion 
of it from any other quarter.


If we seek salvation, 
  we are taught by the very name of Jesus that he possesses it;
if we seek any other gifts of the Spirit, we shall find them in his unction;
 strength in his government; 
 purity in his conception; 
 indulgence in his nativity,
in which he was made like us in all respects,
in order that he might learn to sympathise with us.


If we seek redemption, 
 we shall find it in his passion; 
acquittal in his condemnation;
 remission of the curse in his cross; 
satisfaction in his sacrifice; 
 purification in his blood; 
reconciliation in his descent to hell; 
 mortification of the flesh in his sepulchre. 


Newness of life in his resurrection;
 immortality also in his resurrection;
the inheritance of a celestial kingdom 
  in his entrance into heaven;
protection, security, and the abundant supply 
of all blessings, in his kingdom; 
secure anticipation of judgement
 in the power of judging committed to him. 


In fine, since in him all kinds of blessings are treasured up,
let us draw a full supply from him, and none from any other quarter. 


(From Institutes Book II:16:19. Versified by Guy Davies) 

Calvin on the power of pastors to fire and fulminate

Titus 2:15

Here is the supreme power with which pastors of the Church, 

by whatever name they are called, should be invested— 

 namely, to dare all boldly for the word of God.

Compelling all the virtue, glory, wisdom, and rank of the world

 to yield and obey its majesty.

To command all from the highest to the lowest,

 trusting to its power to build up the house of Christ

 and overthrow the house of Satan.

To feed the sheep and chase away the wolves; 

 to instruct and exhort the docile. 

To accuse, rebuke, and subdue the rebellious and petulant,

 to bind and loose.

In fine, if need be, to fire and fulminate, 

 but all in the word of God.

(Versified by Guy Davies. From Institutes of the Christian Religion Book 4:8:9 - here).

Calvin on Abraham's resurrection faith

I'm preaching through Genesis on Sunday mornings. Last Lord's Day I preached on Genesis 23, where Abraham buys a burial place for Sarah. It's always worth consulting Calvin's commentary on Genesis and his treatment of chapter 23 was especially insightful. He comments on the practice of the burial of the dead even among non-believers,

And certainly (as I have said) it has been divinely engraven on the minds of all people, from the beginning, that they should bury the dead; whence also they have ever regarded sepulchres as sacred. It has not, I confess, always entered into the minds of heathens that souls survived death, and that the hope of a resurrection remained even for their bodies ; nor have they been accustomed to exercise themselves in a pious meditation of this kind, whenever they had laid their dead in the grave; but this inconsideration of theirs does not disprove the fact; that they had such a representation of a future life placed before their eyes, as left them inexcusable.

Calvin deals with this point at greater length in the Institutes (see here). True to his promise in the Epistle to the Reader, treatment of theological points was kept as brief as possible in the Commentaries, as they were designed to be read alongside the Institutes. 

Having thus, as it were, paved the way [in the Institutes], I shall not feel it necessary, in any Commentaries on Scripture which I may afterwards publish, to enter into long discussions of doctrines or dilate on common places, and will, therefore, always compress them. In this way the pious reader will be saved much trouble and weariness, provided he comes furnished with a knowledge of the present work as an essential prerequisite. 

Getting back to Genesis 23, Calvin explains that  unlike the pagans, Abraham believed not simply in life after death, but that God will raise the dead. This was presumably on the basis of special revelation given to Abraham by the Lord. 

Abraham however, seeing he has the hope of a resurrection deeply fixed in his heart, sedulously cherished, as was meet, its visible symbol. The importance he attached to it appears hence, that he thought he should be guilty of pollution, if he mingled the body of his wife with strangers after death. For he bought a cave, in order that he might possess for himself and his family, a holy and pure sepulchre.

Calvin continues to reflect on the fact that Abraham was concerned to purchase a family tomb in the promised land, 

He did not desire to have a foot of earth whereon to fix his tent; he only took care about his grave: and he especially wished to have his own domestic tomb in that land, which had been promised him for an inheritance, for the purpose of bearing testimony to posterity, that the promise of God was not extinguished either by his own death, or by that of his family; but that it then rather began to flourish; and that they who were deprived of the light of the sun, and of the vital air, yet always remained joint-partakers of the promised inheritance. For while they themselves were silent and speechless, the sepulcher cried aloud, that death formed no obstacle to their entering on the possession of it. A thought like this could have had no place, unless Abraham by faith had looked up to heaven.

Identifying himself with the promise made to Abraham, Jacob also insisted that he be buried in the field purchased by his grandfather, Genesis 49:29-32. His coming out of Egypt to be buried in the promised land prefigured the exodus, Genesis 50:13. Joseph left similar instructions concerning his remains, Genesis 50:22-26. Moses honoured Joseph's request, Exodus 13:19. And so he was buried in Canaan, Joshua 24:32. The patriarchs died believing in God’s promises of redemption and inheritance, Gen 15:13-14 cf. Hebrews 11:13-16. That is the only way to die, 1 Peter 1:18-19, 3-5. We are "heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ" (Romans 8:17). Death will not deprive us of our promised inheritance. We look beyond the grave to the resurrection of the body and life everlasting.

When I tread the verge of Jordan,
Bid my anxious fears subside;
Death of death, and hell's destruction
Land me safe on Canaan's side:
Songs of praises, songs of praises,
I will ever give to thee;
I will ever give to thee.

See here for a series of posts on John Calvin and the resurrection of the body. The Commentaries are available for free online, here. 

John Calvin on the Lord's Supper

The first Communion meal was celebrated by Jesus and his disciples on the night in which our Lord was betrayed, or "Maundy Thursday". John Calvin wrote with great insight on the Lord's Supper. He viewed Communion in the light of the believer’s union with Christ. The risen Jesus is bodily in heaven, but we receive the saving benefits of his body and blood through the Holy Spirit. In the Lord’s Supper we have real communion with Christ by the presence of Spirit. As we eat the bread and drink the wine, we feast upon the Saviour by faith.

The sacraments are defined by the Word and made meaningful in the light of the Bible’s teaching. The Lord’s Supper was given as a visible representation of the body and blood of Jesus. What is taught in Scripture concerning Christ is richly symbolised in the bread and the wine. As the people of God eat bread and drink wine together at he Commuion meal the Lord accommodates himself to our weakness to assure us of his love and increase our faith.

Calvin was concerned that Zwingli’s view of the Lord’s Supper focussed too much on the human side. Zwingli emphasised the importance of our faith, our remembering what Christ has done for us. For Calvin, the Lord’s Supper is much more about Christ communicating his life to us. He said, “the flesh of Christ is like a rich inexhaustible fountain, which transfuses into us the life flowing forth from the Godhead itself. (Institutes Book IV, XVII, 9). He reflects on the Lord’s Supper,

But though is seems an incredible thing that the flesh of Christ, while at such a distance from us in respect of place, should be food to us, let us remember how far the secret virtue of the Spirit passes all our conceptions and how foolish it is to wish to measure its immensity by our feeble capacity. Therefore what our mind does not comprehend let faith conceive – namely that the Spirit truly unites things separated by space. The sacred communion of the flesh and blood by which Christ transfuses his life into us, just as if it penetrated our bones and marrow, he testifies and seals in the Supper, and that not by presenting a vain or empty sign, but by here exerting an efficacy of the Spirit by which he fulfils the promises. And truly the thing there signified he exhibits and offers to all who sit down at that spiritual feast, although believers only who receive this great benefit with true faith and heartfelt gratitude beneficially receive it. For this reason the apostle said, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ? (Book IV, XVII, 10).

In Calvin we have a rich and deeply biblical understanding of the Lord’s Supper. "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till he comes." (1 Corinthians 11:26).

2009 Westminster Conference Report (2): Don Carson on Calvin as commentator and theologian

Calvin as commentator and theologian
Don Carson

Carson is famed a New Testament scholar rather than a Calvin specialist. As he approached his subject he reminded us of the words of the 'famous American theologian', Clint Eastwood, "A man's got to know his limitations." But he suggested coming from his specialism he might be able to offer some fresh perspectives on the matter in hand.

Introduction

Calvin was remarkable in that he was a systematician and a Bible commentator. Today's commentators are not often systematic theologians and many systematicians are not too hot on biblical exegesis. Much of what passes for systematic theology today is in fact historical theology where the views of figures from the past are compared and contrasted. Some systematics is more akin to philosophical theology, others give attention to prolegomena, but there are few biblically informed systematic theologies. Calvin however was a systematiser in the Institutes and a prolific biblical commentator. The Institutues and the commentaries fed off each other. In his preface to the Institutes, Calvin made it clear that his systematic work and the commentaries needed to be read together. He did not dilate on doctrinal points in his commentaries because he had dealt more fully with theological issues in the Institutes. As the Institutes expanded from the modest 1536 edition to its 1559 definitive form, it is possible to trace the impact of Calvin's exegetical work on his overarching theological system.

The term 'Biblical Theology' was first used in 1604 of a book full of proof texts for Lutheran orthodoxy. By the 18th century Biblical Theology denoted the study of the theology of the Bible in historical sequence. Under the influence of the Enlightenment, Biblical Theology fell under the spell of the history of religions school of thought. Today Biblical Theology tends to focus rather narrowly on the theology of John, Luke, Peter or 'Q' rather than looking at whole Bible Biblical Theology. Calvin was a 'whole Bible biblical theologian' and a systematic theologian.

Calvin criticized both Melanchthon and Bucer's approach to writing commentaries. 1) In his commentaries Melanchthon gave attention to the theological loci found in the text rather than the whole textual unit. 2) Melanchthon's loci were determined by Aristotelian philosophy. He did not follow the flow of the biblical text. Calvin's expositions followed the text wherever it led. 3) In Bucer we find both the loci approach and an exegesis of the text, making his commentaries massive, unreadable tomes. Calvin aimed at 'clear brevity' in his commentaries. Many of his commentaries were transcripts of his lectures on the Bible. He dealt with the loci in the Institutes.

The development of Calvin's thought can be noted as the Institutes expanded over the years. Material was added to sections on the knowledge of God and ourselves, justification, repentance, the likeness and dislikeness of Old and New Testaments, predestination, providence, the Christian life and monastic vows. His exegetical work influenced and enriched his treatment of these subjects.

Case Studies

Genesis 1 & 2

In the 1536 Institutes there is a lengthy discussion of the image of God under the heading of the knowledge of God and ourselves. In his Commentary of Genesis, he gives scant attention to the image of God.

Genesis 1:2 & 26

From the start the Institutes was thoroughly trinitarian, but Calvin was cautious about seeing the Trinity in the text of Genesis 1. In his commentary he does not draw trinitarian conclusions from the plural divine name Elohim or the use of "us" in Genesis 1:26. He knows very well that God is Trinity, but did not wish to dump his wider theological conclusions into every text of Scripture. Calvin was accused of being a Judaizer because of his reluctance to read truths only fully revealed in the New Testament back into the Old.

Calvin was a master of grammatico-historical exegesis. He eschewed Luther's more explicitly Christological approach to the Old Testament, refusing to read the Old Testament anachronistically.

Genesis 3

In the 1536 Institutes, Calvin spoke of the cancellation and effacement of the image of God due to the fall. As his work expanded he gave more attention to the matter of living for righteousness, with large a sections of Book III of the 1559 Institutes becoming in effect "A Little Book on the Christian Life". He has little to say about this in his commentary on Genesis 3.

Ten Commandments

Calvin wrote a Harmony of the last four books of Moses, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Here he follows a more loci-based approach rather than straight exposition. He gives a more lengthy discussion of the purpose of the law than we find in the Institutes. Unlike in his Harmony of the Gospels, his work on the Pentateuch does not follow the original order of events. The order is changed for the sake of theological emphasis. This more complex approach is partly due to the fact that the work was written rather than being based on his lectures.

In the Harmony his treatment of Exodus 20:1-17 is very much like that of his exposition of Deuteronomy 5 in his commentary on the last Book of Moses. But he comments on Exodus 20:18 first in order to set the scene. In the Harmony Calvin was attempting to provide a biblical theology of the Pentateuch.

1 Peter 2

In the 1536 Institutes, Calvin argued that there are three marks of a true Church, the right preaching of the Word, the proper administration of the sacraments and church discipline. Thereafter, while he emphasizes the importance of discipline, only the Word and sacraments are mentioned as the marks of the church. Calvin was willing to adapt his material for the sake of emphasis.

1 Corinthians 1

In the categories of systematic theology, 'justification' is a once-for-all forensic declaration that a sinner is right with God by faith in the finished work of Christ. 'Sanctification' is defined as the progressive transformation of the believer. Calvin recognised that sanctification does not always carry that meaning in the Bible. Paul described the Corinthians as "saints", 1 Corinthians 1:2. But as the rest of the letter shows, that does not mean that they were living holy lives. Calvin saw that in this case sanctification simply meant being set apart to God. In a similar way, the instruments used in the temple were described as "holy", without implying moral change. Calvin did not use the later language of definitive or positional sanctification in contrast to progressive sanctification. But he was aware that the discourse of systematics is often different to the vocabulary of the biblical text. We need to be sensitive to this too. In systematic theology, we speak of the 'effectual call' to salvation, but in the Synoptics 'call' means invitation. It is in Paul that 'call' means 'effective call'. Philippians 3 is all about progressive sanctification in the sense intended by systematic theology, but the word 'sanctification' is not used once. Preachers need to be aware of the differences between the discourse of systematics and the way language is used in the text of Scripture, so that we do not simply read the categories of systematic theology into the Bible.

Those who read a lot of systematic theology need to compliment that study by reading commentaries that give serious attention to the text of Scripture. Those who read lots of commentaries also need to engage with systematic theology to gain a holistic and coherent view of biblical truth. Biblical theology helps systematic theology to consider texts in their proper redemptive-historical setting. Systematic theology helps biblical theology to locate individual texts in the context of the whole counsel of God. The fact that Calvin was a fine systematiser and a model of clear and concise biblical exegesis makes his God-given gifts seem all the more remarkable.

Discussion

The ensuing discussion mainly ranged around the issue of Christ-centred hermeneutics. Is Calvin Christ-centred enough in his Old Testament commentaries, especially compared with Luther? Carson said that Calvin got it right. When we take his ministry as a whole, he was thoroughly Christ-centred. But he did not read Christ into every Old Testament text. Carson argued that a simplistic "this points to Jesus" approach to the Old Testament is unhelpful. For example, Psalm 69, quoted several times in the Passion Narratives is firstly about David. We understand it as Messianic due to God's covenant with David in 2 Samuel 7, and the expectation of a Davidic Messiah in the prophets - Isaiah 9:6-7 etc. We need to show how the Old Testament Scriptures speak of Christ by making these redemptive-historical links clear. Calvin did this. But still some were unhappy with the apparent lack of Christ-centeredness in Calvin's OT commentaries. His work on Genesis was cited as a case in point. This is also a complaint that might be levelled against many contemporary conservative Old Testament commentaries. The text is expounded in accordance with the rules of grammatico-historical exegesis, but very seldom is an attempt made to show how the passage points to Christ. This is out of kilter with what Jesus said about his place in the Old Testament, Luke 24:46-47 and also 1 Peter 1:10-12. On its own, a grammatico-historical approach to the Old Testament is not sufficient for the Christian expositor. We also need to be sensitive to the redemptive-historical and Christological pattern of biblical revelation.

2009 Westminster Conference Report (1): Garry Williams on Calvin and separation from Rome

John Calvin’s agenda: Issues in the separation from Rome
Garry Williams - Director of the John Owen Centre

For the first time almost 20 years I attended the Westminster Conference. It was a bit like stepping back in time, spotting faces in the crowd I recognised from all those years ago. But there were also a good number of younger people in attendance. For various reasons I was only able to be there for Tuesday's sessions. Here are some notes on the first of the day's three papers.

I. Calvin's anti-Roman writings

Key works: Reply to Cardinal Sadoleto, The Necessity of the Reformation of the Church & Reply to the Council of Trent.

Controversy with Rome a necessity because of Roman idolatry. Avoidance of controversy tantamount to 'rocking the world in a sleep of death'. Idolatry has eternal and temporal consequences. Temporal judgements on Corinthians because of abuse of the Lord's Supper - 1 Corinthians 11. Blasphemy of the Mass far worse than Corinthian error. Encroachment of the Ottoman Empire on Christendom a judgement for abuse of the Lord's Supper.

Priorities:

Concern for worship & doctrine.

Christian religion summed up under two headings:

a) Knowledge of true worship

b) Source of salvation

Church order is comparable to the body and doctrine to the animating soul of the Christian faith. The Reformation aimed at reforming the church and doctrine. Justification of primary importance - the soul of Christianity. The right ordering of the church also important. Unlike Zwingli Calvin believed that God uses external things as means of grace. Not that the sacraments have power in themselves, but when received by faith the Holy Spirit uses the Lord's Supper to strengthen the believer's union with Christ. Christ is given with the signs when they are received by faith.

While we might agree with Calvin's priority on right doctrine, especially justification by faith, do we also share his concern for the reformation of worship? Are our concerns more individualistic with little thought being given to the form and content of Christian worship?

1. The New Testament is concerned with the right ordering of public worship - 1 Corinthians 11.

2. Public worship has an evangelistic purpose - 1 Corinthians 14.

3. Corporate worship in all its parts is meant to be educational, grounding Christians in the Word of God.

II. Calvin's actions in defence of the faith

Attention was drawn to his preaching, teaching, writing, polemical work and correspondence. Herculean labours wielding the club of the Word in the defence and confirmation of the Gospel. Calvin fostered Evangelical unity, seeking to forge links between Lutheran and Reformed camps. Not like Luther who treated Christians who disagreed with him as his enemy. Calvin had a more Conciliatory spirit when it came to controversy with other Evangelicals, but was clear that there could be no reunion with Rome unless Rome was radically reformed. Evangelicals and Catholics Together misguided. GAFCON too willing to side with Anglo-Catholics against Liberals. But we need to work harder to encourage friendly relations with other Reformed Evangelicals across the Anglican/Nonconformist divide. Church Society Anglicans not ecumenically compromised. Not that areas of disagreement don't matter, but we should be governed by a disposition towards unity.

III. The centre of Calvin's vision of reality

His vision focused on the physical body of Christ to which everything else in the world is related. The Christian has been brought into saving union with Christ's body by the Spirit. The life of God flows through the body of the risen Christ to his people. The Roman Catholic teaching of the intercession of the saints robs Jesus of his unique dignity as Saviour. The Roman Catholic bishop attempts to 'strip Christ bare and give the spoils to the Pope'. Christ is 'deformed' by doctrine of the Mass. That is why Calvin has no option but to enter into controversy with Rome. Saving doctrine is at stake - the need to understand what it truly means to eat Christ's flesh and drink his blood, John 6:53-54. The Reformation was about being near to Jesus rather than far from him as in the Roman system.

From Calvin's disagreement with Rome we are reminded of the vital importance of three things: The ongoing reformation of the worship of the church in accordance with the Word of God. The need to cultivate unity among Reformed Evangelicals. A Christocentric vision of reality.

Discussion of this stimulating paper ranged mainly around the theme of worship. The Moore College view that Christians meet on a Sunday simply for instruction was criticised. It was argued that there is such a thing as public worship on the Lord's Day. The New Testament specifies the elements of public worship. The introduction of worship groups and the informality of some church services was kicked around. We need to carefully think through the form and content of our Sunday services. Are they biblical in form and content? Are they reverent and yet joyful? Is there a sense of expectation that in worship we are gathering to meet with the living God? Also, given Calvin's stress on right doctrine, especially of justification by faith, there was a some discussion of the influence of N.T. Wright's views.

It was good to catch up with some old friends at the conference. On the train there and back I was able to read a couple of evangelistic booklets for review on behalf of 10ofthose.com and picked up a copy of a Gospel Intimacy, won in a competition. More reports to come.