Monday, May 03, 2010

Institutes 3.1.1 Christ Suffered for the Sins of the Human Race - Part 2

I'm continuing the previous post on Roger Nicole's interpretation of Calvin's language in Institutes 3.1.1. Calvin wrote:

And the first thing to be attended to is, that so long as we are without Christ and separated from him, nothing which he suffered and did for the salvation of the human race is of the least benefit to us.

Institutes 3.1.1

Nicole's argument

Nicole's argument regarding Calvin's language runs as follows:

Calvin's language parallels very closely the usage of Scripture. (See for instance Rom 5:13; 8:32; 1 Cor 15:22; 2 Cor 5:14; Heb 2:9; 1 John 2:2). Neither the Scripture nor Calvin can be fairly interpreted to teach universal salvation, but the passages advanced as supporting universal atonement simply do not stop there. It is of course legitimate to distinguish, as Calvin clearly does, between impetration and application, but it is improper to separate these, since they always go together. The choice, therefore, is not between universal atonement and definite atonement as properly representative of Calvin's theology, but rather between universal salvation and definite atonement.

Nicole, 218.

Nicole adds in a footnote:

The crux of the matter resides in the fact that Christ's impetration involves the gift of the Holy Spirit to secure repentance and faith in those whom God intended to save. Thus salvation does not occur apart from appropriation, but appropriation is seen by Calvin as a gift of God rather than a performance by the creature. Human beings thus are seen as responsible for their sinful rejection of Christ, when offered, but only the Spirit, whose intervention was secured in the atonement, can lead a sinner to repent, believe and accept the proffered salvation. See Calvin's Calvinism, 164 (OC 8.335).

Nicole, 218, footnote 98.

Impetration v. application

So to Nicole's way of thinking, in Biblical and Calvinistic theology, impetration leads necessarily to application. That is, the extent of the impetration must be coextensive with the extent of application.

We know how the argument might go from scripture (the high Calvinist interpretation of Romans 8:32, being the mainstay). But how would the argument go in Calvin's theology? There is no direct statement from Calvin that would serve the purpose.

In fact, Calvin's statement in the Institutes cannot be pressed into the imagined mold. There is no hint in this quote from the Institutes, nor in any other place in Calvin's work, of the work of the Holy Spirit being co-extensive with Christ's impetration. That being the case, Nicole's argument fails.

The dilemma: universal salvation or definite atonement

As to the imagined dilemma -- universal salvation or definite atonement -- the dilemma disappears when one recognizes that impetration and application need not always go together. That is, in fact, the question in dispute. Obviously if impetration and application always are co-extensive, then limited atonement is a logical and obvious necessity. But if they are not co-extensive, then some sort of universal atonement becomes a possibility. Calvin having distinguished between impetration and application, as in Institutes 3.1.1, his theology does not logically preclude some form of universal atonement.

Bible language/Calvin language

And finally I would address Nicole's argument regarding Calvin's language. It closely parallels the Bible, says Nicole. Agreed. Neither Scripture nor Calvin can be fairly interpreted to teach universal salvation. Agreed. But the passages (what passages?) "simply do not stop there." Nicole's vague statement seems to be saying this: that the Bible passages that would purportedly teach universal atonement must fairly be seen to teach universal salvation if they teach any universality at all. Thus they teach either universal salvation or no universality at all. And it being the case that Calvin's language parallels Biblical language, his use of universal language in the atonement context must also be viewed as teaching either universal salvation or no universality at all.

Having seen the argument spelled out, its falsity is also obvious. To evaluate Calvin's language, we must consult Calvin, not the Bible.

For example, Nicole would have us see Romans 5:18. So let's take that as an example. That verse, in isolation, might plausibly be interpreted to support universal salvation. But only a venal or incompetent interpreter would give it such an import. That being the case, one must ponder how the words "even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life" should be interpreted. There must be some qualification of one sort or another.

Does that mean, therefore, that Calvin's use of the phrase "all men" (or some equivalent expression) ought to be qualified in the way we interpret the phrase when we see it in Romans 5:18? The notion is absurd. One must interpret Calvin's language by reading Calvin, and interpret Biblical language by reading the Bible.

In interpreting Romans 5:18, Calvin says that Christ "suffered for the sins of the whole world...." Should we interpret Calvin's expression "whole world" in the same way that we interpret "all men" in Romans 5:18? Using Nicole's rule, we sure ought to. But then what do we make of the rest of Calvin's sentence? It goes: "for though Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world, and is offered through God’s benignity indiscriminately to all, yet all do not receive him.." This creates problems for Nicole's Bible/Calvin language rule. Because Calvin is speaking of a "whole world," all of whom are offered the benefits of Christ. This "whole world" is such a world that "all do not receive him."

Any sensible reader would conclude that Calvin's phrase "whole world" cannot refer to the elect of the whole world. That being the case, there is either some discontinuity between Calvin's language and that of the Bible, or else Romans 5:18 really refers to "all men" without qualification. In either case, Nicole's argument goes pfffft. I suggest that Nicole could not reasonably interpret "all men" in 5:18 in the same way that he interprets "whole world" in Calvin's commentary on 5:18.

And I would add still further, (going back to our question about interpreting Calvin's statement in Institutes 3.1.1), that since we are dealing with Calvin's language in the Institutes, not in a commentary (where we would expect to have close symmetry of meaning), Nicole's Bible/Calvin language rule has even less force and applicability. What Calvin means by "human race" in the Institutes must be divined from the plain meaning of words and sensible interpretation.

And just in case you're wondering, there is no dilemma for me: both Calvin and Romans 5:18 refer to all men (really all) and the whole world (including all men). We just have to understand that though Christ suffered for all and is offered to all, out of God's goodness to all, yet all do not receive him. Simple and sensible.

15 comments:

Eddie Eddings said...

Just came across your blog today. Man! There is a lot here to digest. I need a good four months to look this over properly! God bless and keep up the God work!

Steve said...

Hey Eddie ... thanks for posting. Love your cartoons! :-)

David said...

Hey Steve,

You cite Nicole as saying:

"It is of course legitimate to distinguish, as Calvin clearly does, between impetration and application, but it is improper to separate these, since they always go together."

David: The problem is, he just makes that stuff up. He never sources the argument/inference from Calvin.

Its actually a shame that his work on Calvin is so atextual and ahistorical.

David

Steve said...

Thanks, David. I agree ... this rule is just made up, as Nicole seems inclined to do. "They always go together" is assuming what must be proved, so it begs the question.

Plus, as you noted, there is no proof from Calvin.

Ydychi@aol.com said...

Rom. 5:18 cannot mean that Christ died to save every man ever born throughout the ages as we see clearly from scripture and the warnings of our Lord Jesus that there is a place of suffering prepared for the wicked so we must look for another explanation to explain how Jesus died for all.

The Canons of Dordt (1618-19)give us a clue when they state that Christ died sufficient for all:
Second Main Point of Doctrine
Article 3: The Infinite Value of Christ's Death
This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world.

So therefore Christ died for the sins of the world in the sense that He died sufficient for all, so that all who call on him will not be rejected (assuming they are calling in repentance and true faith). So then the Gospel call is made most genuine as Christ did not limit his sacrifice but has made it more than sufficient to cover all sin of the world. That men do not answer that call is within themselves and they will be judged for not answering it.

If they make the accusation that God has left them in that fallen estate of our forefathers who are they to complain against their maker.

Ioan (Ploughed Ground)

Steve said...

I agree, Ioan. The problem is that the debate is not about the sufficiency of the atonement, but the intention of it. Some high Calvinists insist that there was never any intention in any sense for all men to be saved.

But if we are claiming to follow Calvin, his statement that Christ "did and suffered" something for the human race, which benefit might be lost through neglect, ought to cause us to reassess.

Calvin did not see Christ's atonement as merely sufficient for all men, but as intended for all men. I think that's the real issue.

stevez said...

Where did you go??

Steve said...

Hi stevez.

Note to the world: I'm still here ... I've just been busy with other things, and not as interested in theological controversy as I was ... I'm not sure it was doing my sanctification any good.

But for some reason or another, people have started making comments on the blog again. Don't know why. If you all want to read more, perhaps I'll renew my efforts.

Thanks for your comment, stevez.

Anonymous said...

i have a question,how could Christ have an intention to save all men and yet not all men will be saved?If that matter rest with the decision of the sinner then is that not Arminianism.Faith is a gift of grace bestowed only on Gods elect.Whether Calvin said it or not i have no interest.What does john 6.you cannot come you will not come.And if faith is a gift of grace ,how is Christ offer to all?i know the sound of the gospel is heard by all rom.10 but they have not all obeyed, why because they are not of his sheep john 10.An offer suggest a refusal and all by nature refuse,so what makes the difference in the one choosing,grace and the work of regeneration.It is confusing to be sure, i welcome any comments to my email ric.peters1@aol.com

Anna bloom said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
JOY KIDS said...

JOY KIDS - РАДОСТЬ ДЕТЯМ - Сайт для детей и их родителей

channel for children and their parents For children toys, kindergarten crafts, children's toy store, as well as animation, cartoons, shows, entertainment shows and videos for kids
Детский мир игрушек, поделки, анимация, мультфильмы, шоу, развлекательные передачи и видео для малышей, а также статьи о воспитании и развитии ребёнка и много полезного и интересного.
http://joykidschannel.com

blog
YouTube channel
YouTube video Best
Одноклассники
twitter
google plus
Вконтакте
facebook
instagram

KONİ PENETRASYON DENEYİ (CPT) said...

thanks for it. Cool! Koni
Penetrasyon Deneyi (CPT)

yoy You said...

In the name of many affordable Louis Vuitton handbags in front of some people with the big slip, but in vain to back the brand Chanel handbags name is still aunt street; and smart fashion fine they will know how to use the same money to buy the noble fashion Rolex Air King section .If you have determined to get rid of Aunt, promotion of fashion fine, then first look at the luxury entry five best?Original Rolex Watches?and the most worthwhile investment in five international Omega Watches Replica big bar.As if the brand of Replica Tag Heuer had to recommend, can not find a reason not recommended.?

Louis Vuitton handbags


Rolex Air King

1:1 Replica Breitling Watches


Chanel handbags


Original Rolex Watches


Omega Watches Replica


Replica Tag Heuer

yoy You said...

In the name of many affordable Louis Vuitton handbags in front of some people with the big slip, but in vain to back the brand Chanel handbags name is still aunt street; and smart fashion fine they will know how to use the same money to buy the noble fashion Rolex Air King section .If you have determined to get rid of Aunt, promotion of fashion fine, then first look at the luxury entry five best?Original Rolex Watches?and the most worthwhile investment in five international Omega Watches Replica big bar.As if the brand of Replica Tag Heuer had to recommend, can not find a reason not recommended.?

Louis Vuitton handbags


Rolex Air King

1:1 Replica Breitling Watches


Chanel handbags


Original Rolex Watches


Omega Watches Replica


Replica Tag Heuer

jawad haider said...

Thank you to tell us so much useful information. I’m glad to read it. diablo incense