Reflections on Calvin's Institutes (part 2)

by Peter Phillips

How can we see Calvin's theology applied in some real situations that the church is facing today? For instance, what would Calvin say to the question of whether or not someone could be saved apart from Christ, or whether someone can be saved without faith in Christ, by simply being a “good” pagan? Personally, I think Calvin would have a theological coronary over the suggestion that there is salvation outside of a saving knowledge of Christ our Redeemer. Regarding this very issue, he says, “Surely, after the fall of the first man no knowledge of God apart from the Mediator has had the power unto salvation (Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 1:24). For Christ not only speaks of his own age, but comprehends all ages when he says: “This is eternal life, to know the Father to be the one true God, and Jesus Christ whom he has sent” (John. 17:3). Thus, all the more vile is the stupidity of those persons who open heaven to all the impious and unbelieving without the grace of him whom the Scripture commonly teaches to be the only door whereby we enter into salvation (John 10:9). But if anyone would like to restrict this statement of Christ to the publishing of the gospel, there is a ready refutation: it was the common understanding of all the ages and all the nations that men who have become estranged from God (Eph. 4:18) and have been declared accursed (Gal. 3:10) and children of wrath (Eph. 2:3) without reconciliation cannot please God [Rom. 8:7-8].” (II.VI.1). Calvin has no place for people coming to God apart from Jesus Christ. In fact, we are totally unable to come to God on our own, because depravity and corruption has so twisted the hearts of mankind such that we universally rebel against God until we are transformed by grace (Rom. 3; Eph. 2). General Revelation is unable to save us, but it clearly reveals God and renders us inexcusable before Him (Rom. 1). Therefore, the Muslim or Hindu are held accountable for their sin and rejection of the true and living God, regardless of whether they adhere to the tenants of their respective false religion. Jesus himself said, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day (John 6:44).” Furthermore, we cannot even know the Father unless we have the Son. As Jesus proclaims, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me (John 14:6).” If Jesus says there is no other way to the Father than through Him, then I would say the exclusive nature of Christianity and faith in Christ is a divine prerogative.

This issue reminds me of a conversation I got into recently as I was studying Calvin at the Java Co. A large man came up to me and asked if I was reading the Bible. I told him that I was reading the 16^th century Reformer, John Calvin. He sort of snickered and said, “Are you a Calvinist?” I replied in the affirmative, because you have got to represent! After that, the door was open, and I was able to share with him that Calvin had a high view of Scripture and has significantly impacted the Protestant tradition. After we talked for a bit, I found out that he was a professing believer and that he formerly attended a Calvary Chapel. About ten minutes into our discussion he hits me with a heavy dose of theological skepticism, and at the pinnacle of this he says, “I think it is kind of narcissistic for Christians to claim Jesus is the only way…you mean to tell me that Jesus is going to send people from all those other religions to hell?” Shortly after that, I began with a discussion of about the total depravity of humanity, and then worked right on through to Book Two of the Institutes, which deals with Christ the Redeemer. Finally I explained to him that confessing Christians should affirm what Christ Himself taught, because the Word of God is the final standard for what we believe about these issues. This is not simply my idea, but the sure testimony of Jesus and the whole New Testament. Nobody can be saved apart from a saving faith in Christ (Act. 4:12; Rom. 1:16, 3:23-26; Eph. 2:8).

By way of summary, I believe that evangelicalism is in desperate need of the theology of John Calvin, which is essentially a theology of the Bible. His writings are as Biblically rich as they are relevant for our day. Much of the theological problems that the Christian faces today have been answered over 400 years ago by Calvin, and the Christian would do well to read Calvin so that he can have the benefit of one of the greatest theological minds of Christendom. Calvin was a master exegete, a brilliant systematician, and well versed in historical theology. We only cut ourselves off from a great wealth of knowledge when we fail to read and reckon with this gifted teacher of God’s Word. He was a man who raised the banner of truth, defended the vitality of Sola Scriptura, and as the young folk say in our day, “He brought it!”

Reflections on Calvin's Institutes (part 1)

by Peter Phillips

(This post is the product of spending 10 weeks studying Calvin's Institutes. It's a short musing on the importance and relevance of his theology and life for our day)

During the past ten weeks it has been a joy to explore the life and theology of John Calvin. I found myself continually thanking God for the amazing gifts He pours out on His people, especially gifting teachers such as Calvin to help us understand holistic Biblical theology. Taking the Bible in one hand and reading the Institutes along side of it has really helped me see the vital importance of understanding historical theology as it has come down to us over the centuries. Many people in the evangelical Church today are just plain ignorant of historical theology, which leads to an ignorance of theology in general. Within the (Visible) Church today there is massive confusion about the core truths of the historic Christian faith. There are people within evangelicalism who think that Christ is one of many ways to God, or that people can be saved through Christ without actually believing in Jesus, such as a faithful Muslim who never hears of Christ. But, what would Calvin think? Would not the leaders of the reformation be up in arms over such denials of the orthodox claims of Christianity and the plain teaching of Scripture? Sola Scriptura is no longer the banner of the average confessing evangelical. They would rather interpret scripture based on feelings or experience or pure philosophical speculation. Oh, how we need to hear the voice of John Calvin in our day! Calvin was a man who stood for the truth of the Gospel, and he would combat anything that perverted the purity and integrity of that Gospel. Evangelicalism has lost its doctrinal spine and has become so complacent that it is willing to allow core truths of the faith to be carried off in the postmodern current and swept into the abyss of relativism. May it never be so! May the Church wake up and continue to raise the banner of truth, defend the historic creeds, and stand upon the Scriptures.

Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion is a rich display of a man with deep knowledge of the Bible coupled with a thoroughgoing understanding of historical theology. One sees Calvin defending orthodoxy, and at the same time, bringing to light the heretical doctrines of the day. He was not afraid to call out the deceptive teachers as “dogs” and “pigs,” and expose that which he felt was detrimental to the Church and distorting the truth of the Word of God. Today, many Christians do not know the difference between the Mormon gospel and the Christian Gospel; they would not know a “dog” if it bit them in the hindquarters. In fact, just the other day, I ran into an evangelical precisely as a cultist from the World Mission Society Church of God was seducing him with false teaching, and convincingly I might add. I happened to be reading Calvin in a coffee shop when they sat down next to me. Eventually we all got in a dialogue and discussed the theological position of the cult versus the historic Christian confession, and there were so many differences (life or death one’s, at that) that it was mind-blowing. God gave me the opportunity and wisdom to help that misguided brother into a right understanding of the gospel and out of the clutches of the cultist. What made me nervous about the whole situation was that this evangelical was a committed churchgoing Christian, and he could not distinguish blatant heresy and false teaching from the true gospel. It’s no wonder God is raising up a reformed resurgence in America and within evangelicalism. We need to address the theological ignorance within the evangelical community and stand up for the doctrines of the reformation and historic creeds when they are under assault in our cultural milieu. Calvin is just the sort of theologian and pastoral heart we need to hear again today.

For whom did Christ die? (part 6)

by Danny Pelichowski

The Nature and Extent of the Atonement (part 4)

Dr. Bruce Ware proposes an interesting set of arguments coming from a modified Calvinist position. He holds to what he calls the multiple intentions view of the atonement. He views the atoning work of Christ as being both limited and unlimited. According to his class outline and course lectures Bruce Ware views the extent of the atonement as being a complex act of God that is multifaceted.[9] Christ's death was made to secure the salvation of the elect as well as dying for the sins of the whole world so that anyone who believes will be granted salvation. The multiple intentions view of the atonement accounts for a variety of Biblical passages that seem to be contradictory. The atonement passages that use the language “world” and “all” can be read plainly to actually mean that he died for everyone (1 Timothy 2:3-4; 1 John 2:2; 2 Peter 2:1). On the contrary, passages that speak about the atonement being applied to the elect of God, the sheep, or the church can also be affirmed (Ephesians 5: 25-27; Revelation 5:9; Titus 2:14). In defense of his position he would explain to the person who holds to particular redemption that although he realizes and wholeheartedly believes that Christ died specifically for the elect the Bible never says that he died only for the elect. Another argument Dr. Ware uses is that unlimited atonement makes a bona fide offer of salvation possible. If Christ did not die for everyone then we could not tell people with certainty that Jesus died for them personally.[10] Walter Elwell adds to this argument in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology in his representation of general redemption with the argument that the unbelievers “are lost, not because Christ did not die for them, but because they refuse God’s offer of forgiveness."[11] Ware goes on to explain that Christ’s death actually adds an additional basis of judgment to the people who reject Christ because they are rejecting the one who died for them.[12] The last argument that Bruce Ware uses is the necessity of saving faith argument.[13] He argues that if everyone, including the elect prior to their faith is under the condemnation of God then faith accompanied with the atonement is necessary for salvation (Ephesians 2:1-3). Therefore, the atonement alone makes salvation possible to all people and the subjective faith of sinners is required for it to be applied to them to appease the wrath of God. Bruce Ware is interested in correctly handling the scriptures and has found that this view of the atonement is the best way to interpret the whole scope of Biblical passages on the subject.

The limited atonement position has a wide variety of arguments; this first argument will specifically address Dr. Ware’s interpretation of scripture on the extent of the atonement. For example, passages that are found in the New Testament that use the language “world” and “all” do not have to apply to all people who ever existed. 1 Timothy 2:4 says that God “desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. William Hendriksen explains that, "Paul definitely mentions 'groups' or 'classes' of men; kings (v.2), those in high position (v.2) etc., the Gentiles (v.7). He is thinking of rulers and (by implication) subjects, of Gentiles and (again by implication) Jews, and he is urging Timothy to see to it that in [the] public worship [at Ephesus] not a single group be omitted."[14] This seems to be a better interpretation than saying that God’s desire is contradictory to his decree. God chose a specific people to show mercy and this eternal decree of God cannot be contradictory to His will. Gary Long brings up a great question and reply to the unlimited atonement interpretation of this passage that God desires the salvation of every person. “Can God decree something contrary to His inclination or nature? No, humanly speaking, God chooses (i.e., decrees) in harmony with His Holy nature. And is it not true that what God's soul "desireth [thelo], even that He doeth" (Job 23:13)? In summary, if God desires [thelo] to save all mankind absolutely, then each and every individual will be saved, for what He desires to do He does."[15] To be fair Bruce Ware and most four pointers would probably differentiate between God’s decree and his desire and agree that He only decreed the election of only some to be brought to salvation through their faith because the unregenerate is incapable of producing saving faith. With that being said it seems arbitrary for Dr. Ware to communicate that Christ died to make salvation possible for all people and that there is a “sense in which God desires all to be saved” when he affirms the special sense of Gods love for the elect.[16] If God chose to save some people then it should follow that he also died for the one’s whom He predestined to be the objects of His mercy. Now that some discussions about both the unlimited and definite atonement interpretations have been addressed I will give reasons and justification for the position that I hold in regards to the extent of the atonement.

____________________________________________

9 Ware, Bruce. Extent of the Atonement: Outline of the Issue, Positions, Key Texts, and Key Theological Arguments. He does a very good job of presenting the different positions accurately giving both scriptural and theological arguments for Calvinism and Arminianism and concluding with his own multiple intentions view of the atonement.

10 Ibid This argument as well as the others will be addressed later in the paper when dealing with the arguments for limited atonement.

11 Elwell, Walter. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. P. 116

12 Ware, Bruce. Extent of the Atonement: Outline of the Issue, Positions, Key Texts, and Key Theological Arguments.

13 Ibid

14 Hendriksen, William. Baker New Testament commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. P. 94

15 Long Gary, D. The Salvation of All Men, Grace Abounding Ministries, 1977. pp 1-6.

16 Ware, Bruce. Extent of the Atonement: Outline of the issue, Positions, Key Texts, and Key Theological Arguments.

For whom did Christ die (part 5)

by Danny Pelichowski

The Nature and Extent of the Atonement (part 3)

“Redemption is that priestly work of Christ wherein He delivered us from our bondage to the Law, Sin and Satan through purchase by the ransom of His substitutionary obedience in life and death.”[6] Scripture tells us that that redemption is the reason Christ came to the earth (Matthew 20:28). Jesus gave his life as a ransom to God in order to grant us freedom. Dr. Robert Morey explains that “Christ did not pay a ransom to Satan as some medieval theologians thought. But, rather, Christ’s ransom was paid to God to remove sin for it is by sin that Satan holds us captive. By removing our sins through the death of Christ, God delivered us from the power of darkness."[7] We are indeed set free from the bondage of sin for we read in Titus 2:14 that Jesus is the one “who gave Himself up for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed.” The work of Christ brought sinful men out of slavery and purchased them freedom by which they can rejoice.

Thus far we have discussed how Christ appeased Gods wrath as well as reconciling us to God. These two aspects of the atonement bring the believer true peace with God. Redemption follows bringing freedom to the elect. The final aspect of the nature of the atonement is expiation or payment that is made for sinners. Payment is discussed last not for any reason of the value or the order of application in the atonement because the whole work of Christ is equally valuable and comprehensive. The first three aspects of the atonement implicate a payment or cleansing however expiation is much more specific in that it implies the substitutionary act of Christ’s removal of our sin and guilt. We are actually viewed as being innocent before the Lord on the basis of Christ work on the cross. It is true that the subjective reality of justification or legal innocence before the Lord doesn’t happen until a profession of faith; however, no one could be justified without the work of Christ. It is also important to understand that even faith is a sovereign gift of God and all necessary applications of salvation was purchased on the cross (Ephesians 2:8). Therefore, I can say that through the atonement Christ made a complete sacrifice for the elect that secures their election, regeneration, faith, repentance, sanctification and glorification (Hebrews 9:12; Ephesians 2:8; Galatians 3:13;). Arthur Pink very graciously points out that the reason we can have remission and confidence that our sin was washed clean is on the basis of the atonement.[8] Our high Priest Jesus Christ has made a perfect and definite atonement for His sheep.

Now that the nature of the atonement has been discussed the extent of the atonement will be the topic for the remainder of the paper. When discussing the topic about those whom Christ died there are many differing views that are held. For the sake of brevity and personal interests I am only going to compare the five point Calvinists view of the extent of the atonement to the modified or four point Calvinist position. Either Christ died for the whole world (unlimited atonement) without exception, or He died for only the elect (limit atonement) who were chosen by the Father. The historic Calvinist position believe that Christ died a substitutionary death for those who were unconditionally elected by God the Father in order to give them free mercy and grace. The elect are the objects of His mercy; therefore the death of Christ was the sacrifice made for the elect alone. The modified Calvinist position on the extent of the atonement is that Christ died for the whole world yet His death is only applied to the elect on the condition of faith. We now turn to an exegetical and theological discussion about the passages and arguments that each camp uses to defend their position.

---

6. Morey, Robert. Studies in the Atonement. P. 35

7. Ibid

8. Pink, Arthur, W. The Satisfaction of Christ. P. 105

For whom did Christ die (part 4)

by Danny Pelichowski

The Nature and Extent of the Atonement (part 2)

God in his righteousness hates sin and must punish creatures both fallen man and demons on the basis of their wickedness. Although these fallen angels were created prior to man and are a higher and more powerful form of being, humans and not fallen angels (demons) are the objects of Christ’s sacrifice. In light of this truth Christian should worship and thank the Lord for choosing to show them free grace that was not given to all of God's fallen creatures. The nature of atonement in the New Testament is found in the person and work of Jesus Christ. He is our perfect sacrificial lamb and high priest to make final atonement for the forgiveness of sins (Hebrews 7:26-28). It is no longer necessary to make continual sacrifices like those found in the Old Testament because Christ’s death was the final and perfect substitutionary sacrifice. Christ’s death accomplished propitiation, reconciliation, redemption, and expiation. These four theological terms lay a foundation for further discussion about the nature of the work that Christ came to the earth to accomplish.

Dr. Robert Morey defines propitiation as, “that priestly work of Christ wherein He removed God’s anger and wrath by the covering over of our sins through the substitutionary sacrifice of Himself to God, thus securing our acceptance before God."[3] Christ appeased the Fathers wrath against the elect in order to show them free mercy and grace. God’s righteous anger could have been appeased in no other way. Our punishment was laid upon Christ who is a pure and sinless savior. God loves those whom he makes atonement for and at the same time needs to be propitiated in order to remain just (Romans 3:23-26). God cannot just overlook sin because it would contradict His justice and therefore make His love perverted. It would be impossible for God to forgive us if He merely left us in our sin and guilt without punishment. This would show a lack of wisdom, care, and love because He would be going against His holy nature and we would continue in our guilt. John Murray explains that “the doctrine of propitiation is precisely this that God loved the objects of His wrath so much that He gave His own son to the end that He by His blood should make provision for the removal of this wrath."[4] Knowing that God’s wrath and anger has been absorbed by Christ is an overwhelming thought. Jesus was perfect in every way and we were wicked but because of God’s unconditional love He chose to have his wrath propitiated in Christ as opposed to having His wrath poured out over us.

After God’s wrath is appeased through Christ as our substitute we are brought to reconciliation with God. In Romans 5:10-11 Paul states that “if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through who we have now received reconciliation.” Christ satisfied the wrath of God on the cross so that we might be brought into a harmonious relationship with God based on the righteous act of His Son. Some people believe that reconciliation is a two way process of God and man both initiating reconciliation. However, as Stan Norman indicates in the Holman Bible Dictionary, “The removal of alienation, created by man’s sin, is the work of God. The Bible never portrays man as reconciling himself to God or God being influenced by humans to reconciliation."[5] It was God’s choice alone to initiate the plan of redemption and any doctrine that teaches otherwise is humanistic in its nature and should be re-evaluated from scripture. Man is helpless when it comes to his sinfulness and guilt, only God the Son can propitiate divine wrath and bring complete reconciliation between God and man.

---

3. Morey, Robert. Studies in the Atonement. P. 27

4. Murray, John. The Atonement. P. 15

5. Norman, Stan. The Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary. P. 1368