But it evolved—Calvinism, that is

Protestant scholarship after Calvin took a different turn. The substitution model evolved into a more programmatic presentation than anything in Calvin’s writings, let alone in the New Testament. 487

Worth the work?

It is worth the extra work to understand Calvin’s language about the breach between sinful humanity and righteous God as a corrective to our narcissism.—Fleming Rutledge, The Crucifixion

The six possible perfections of "Grace"/Gift

We have identified six possible perfections:
(i) superabundance: the supreme scale, lavishness, or permanence of the gift;

(ii) singularity: the attitude of the giver as marked solely and purely by benevolence;

(iii) priority: the timing of the gift before the recipient’s initiative;

(iv) incongruity: the distribution of the gift without regard to the worth of the recipient;

(v) efficacy: the impact of the gift on the nature or agency of the recipient;

(vi) non-circularity: the escape of the gift from an ongoing cycle of reciprocity.—J. M. G. Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 186

<idle musing>
You need to remember these six points! They are vital to the rest of the book. I find myself continually referring back to them as I read. Not all six are perfected by every writer—in fact they rarely if ever are. A writer will choose to perfect one or two. And this is where the problem arises. Everyone assumes that their version is the correct one and therefore reads their version back into the sources. Think Augustine/Calvin, who perfect efficacy and then read that back into the New Testament (hint, it isn't there!).
</idle musing>

Integral, but not prior

Calvin insists, “Christ justifies no one whom he does not at the same time sanctify” ([Inst.] III.16.1). Calvin is unwilling to follow the Lutheran distinction between inner saving faith and outer works of service, because the believers good works are integral to participation in Christ, whose purpose is to conform believers into his image (Rom 8:29) and thus to transform them into some approximation of the holiness of God (Inst. IIl.8.1). Calvin’s task—and considerable achievement—is to position a life of good works within the scheme of salvation, without making these works instrumental in obtaining or “meriting” grace, that is, without compromising the priority and incongruity of grace. To the extent that he succeeded, he laid the foundation for a Protestant theology of grace that envisaged an extended narrative of moral progress as an integral element of the life of faith.—J. M. G. Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 124

The three offices of Christ

Calvin’s stress upon the mediatorial presence of God in Christ leads him to insist upon a close connection between the person and the work of Christ. Drawing on a tradition going back to Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260–ca. 340), Calvin argues that Christ’s work may be summarized under three offices or ministries (the munus triplex Christi) — prophet, priest, and king. The basic argument is that Jesus Christ brings together in his person the three great mediatorial offices of the Old Testament. In his prophetic office, Christ is the herald and witness of God’s grace. He is a teacher endowed with divine wisdom and authority. In his kingly office, Christ has inaugurated a kingship which is heavenly, not earthly; spiritual, not physical. This kingship is exercised over believers through the action of the Holy Spirit. Finally, through his priestly office, Christ is able to reinstate us within the divine favor, through offering his death as a satisfaction for our sin. In all these respects, Christ brings to fulfillment the mediatorial ministries of the Old Covenant, allowing them to be seen in a new and clearer light as they find their fulfillment in his mediatorship.—Alister McGrath, Theology: The Basics (2nd ed.), 78–79

Rock of Ages and reflections on the author

204 Toplady. 7. 7. 7. 7. 7. 7.

1 Rock of ages, cleft for me,
   Let me hide myself in Thee;
   Let the water and the blood,
   From Thy wounded side which flowed,
   Be of sin the double cure,
   Save from wrath and make me pure.

2 Could my tears forever flow,
   Could my zeal no languor know,
   These for sin could not atone:
   Thou must save, and Thou alone.
   In my hand no price I bring;
   Simply to Thy cross I cling,

3 While I draw this fleeting breath,
   When my eyes shall close in death,
   When I rise to worlds unknown,
   And behold Thee on Thy throne,
   Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
   Let me hide myself in Thee.
                         Augustus Toplady
                         The Methodist Hymnal 1939 edition

<idle musing>
When I was in college, one of my roommates had a John Denver live album on which he makes a mockery of this hymn as part of his mockery of the American way of death. To this day, I can't help but hear the first two lines as "Rock of Ages, cleft for me, for a slightly higher fee." Now I've cursed you with that knowledge too. No need to thank me : (

On a more serious note: For years I thought the name of the author was pronounced Top'-lady. It wasn't until I saw it in an older hymnal where they have it as To'plady that I realized my mistake. Now, if you didn't know that, Does that make up for the bad first paragraph? : )

Also, this hymn seems to have an amazing number of alternate verses for one in English and under 300 year old!. I can't even begin to list the different verses, so just click through to hymnary.org for the different options.

Finally, hymnary.org quotes this from a biographical note about him:

He was a strong and partizan Calvinist, and not well-informed theologically outside of Calvinism. We willingly and with sense of relief leave unstirred the small thick dust of oblivion that has gathered on his controversial writings, especially his scurrilous language to John Wesley because of his Arminianism, as we do John Wesley's deplorable misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Calvinism.

Throughout Toplady lacked the breadth of the divine Master's watchword "Forbid him not, for he that is not against us is for us" (St. Luke ix. 50). He was impulsive, rash-spoken, reckless in misjudgment; but a flame of genuine devoutness burned in the fragile lamp of his overtasked and wasted body.

I would argue with their characterization of Wesley, but I've read some of Toplady's stuff against Wesley, and agree with them about his accusations against Wesley.

He was truly a saint with feet of clay, like so many.
</idle musing>

The illogic of Calvin's determinism

Calvin denies human freedom, but he also maintains full human responsibility, while at the same time he asserts that God alone determines all that happens, without, however, ascribing to Him the origin of evil. This is the element in Calvin's thought which is so unsatisfactory, not to say painful and dishonest. He does not admit for a moment that there is an insoluble dilemma here, a paradoxical statement which cannot be regarded as free from contradictions, a statement which includes within itself two opposed assertions, but he proceeds as though everything were in order, while actually he is flying in the face of logic.—Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Creation and Redemption, 172

<idle musing>
Indeed! That's the fly in the ointment for all determinists. It isn't a paradox; it's a logical contradiction.
</idle musing>

The Goods life?

To judge by most people’s actions today, they believe the goods life is the good life, and they devote themselves to this whether or not they also believe in God or engage in worship or prayer. In public culture and society as a whole, in both the United States and Europe, the consumption of goods and pursuit of enjoyment has essentially replaced religion. Whether you happen to be religious has no effect at all on the dominant culture. This would have horrified—if perhaps not surprised—Luther and Calvin and other sixteenth-century Protestant reformers.—Rebel in the Ranks, 255

<idle musing>
I like that, the "goods life." He is correct, we've exchanged a good life in Christ for a goods life of consumerism—and it doesn't fulfill. We need to consume more to attempt to fill that hole in our souls, which of course feeds the cycle of consume and throw away, leading to an ever warmer and more unstable climate.

Seems an appropriate meditation this advent season for why we need a savior.

Just an
</idle musing>

Wrong focus

Barclay, Paul and the Gift, 569, puts it summarily: “The priority of the gift is everywhere presupposed, but Paul rarely draws out predestinarian conclusions, as in the Hodayot [of the Dead Sea Scrolls] or in the theologies of Augustine and Calvin.” That is, Paul himself is not nearly as interested in perfecting the volitional priority of God’s personal electing grace (God’s choosing specific individuals before their birth for final salvation) as some of Paul’s interpreters have been. While God’s all—encompassing knowledge of the past, present, and future is everywhere presupposed (e. g., Rom. 11:33-36; 1 Cor. 2:7; Eph. 3:9), and Paul frequently speaks of specific events that God has arranged in advance (Rom. 8:28-30; 1 Cor. 15:51-55; Gal. 3:8; Eph. 1:3—14; 2:10; 1 Thess. 4:16; 2 Tim. 1:9), Paul’s emphasis is consistently on God’s choosing of the Christ and the corporate people of God in the Christ, not on individual predestination unto eternal life or damnation.—Matthew Bates in Salvation by Allegiance Alone, 106 n. 5

That's NOT the point!

Although philosophical consistency suggests that it is almost certainly the case that God—who transcends ordinary categories of space and time—knows in advance the eternal destiny of each individual person, this is not Paul’s point here or elsewhere (contra Calvin and others). Even Paul’s example vis-a—vis Pharaoh in Romans 9:16-23 does not speak directly about Pharaoh’s eternal fate, but only shows that God may harden individuals in order to assist others and to bring greater glory to God’s own self. God retains the prerogative to reshape that vessel of wrath into something new even as he uses it as an instrument of his mercy. Misshapen potter’s clay was not generally thrown away or destroyed in antiquity but rather put back on the wheel and crafted afresh (for evidence, see Jer. 18:4-6 as the background to Rom. 9:16-23). Even in this particular case, as the Bible presents the matter, God’s hardening is in full cooperation with Pharaoh’s free will, as the God-ordained consequences of Pharaoh’s own choices move him to a state of ever—greater (but from his vantage point still potentially revocable) hard-heartedness.—Matthew Bates in Salvation by Allegiance Alone, 106

No cheap grace here

Jeremiah acknowledges in prayer the necessity of divine discipline but he also pleads for leniency. Calvin draws attention to a general truth by pointing to the necessity of the people’s repentance as well: “the real character and nature of repentance is, to submit to God’s judgment and to suffer with a resigned mind his chastisement, provided it be paternal.” In other words, the intercessor urges Yhwh not to judge Israel in the heat of His justified wrath or nothing will be left of His people. The text makes a clear distinction between discipline in anger that would destroy the obstinate sinner and a discipline according to justice (ְbemišpāṭ) that will eventually lead to repentance and renewal. Here divine justice has the connotation of grace and mercy. Jeremiah does not plead for cheap grace. He clearly speaks of Israel’s guilt and its need for discipline, but he prays for a calm and well reflected judgment that would not endanger the future of the people of God (“. . . lest you would bring everything to nothing,” Jer 10:24; cf. Ps. 6:1).—Standing in the Breach, page 351

Destruction!

Calvin sees in the divine demand to be left alone Moses’ sharpest and sorest trial of faith. The reformer compares it with God’s command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (Gen 22). First, the patriarch is told that in and through Isaac God will raise a people for Himself and then Abraham is to slay him. As Calvin observes:

The same thing is here recorded of Moses, before whom God sets a kind of contradiction in His Word, when He declares that He has intention of destroying that people, to which He had promised the land of Canaan.

Of particular interest is Calvin’s interpretation of YHWH’s demand to be left alone. He senses in this request a divine testing of Moses’ faith, while at the same time a means to provoke Moses to pray more earnestly. Calvin’s interpretation is not only congruent with the rabbinic interpretation above but also realizes the critical interrelation between Moses’ prayer and YHWH’s outworking of salvation history. Calvin denies the possibility that God was not serious, or even deceitful when He announced His intention to destroy sinful Israel. According to Calvin there is a delicate line between YHWH’s providence and Moses’ prayer.—Standing in the Breach, page 135

<idle musing>
One of the few times I agree with Calvin! : )
</idle musing>

Calvin and works

"We dream not of a faith which is devoid of good works, nor of a justification which can exist without them: the only difference is, that while we acknowledge that faith and works are necessarily connected, we, however, place justification in faith not works ... Thus it appears how true it is that we are justified not without, and yet not by works, since in the participation in Christ, by which we are justified, is contained not less sanctification than justification."—John Calvin, cited by M. Bird in —The Saving Righteousness of God, page 111

Maybe I'm all wet here

but, all this hoopla amongst Reformed folks about Rob Bell's book strikes me as ironic. Usually Wesleyan-Arminian folks are the ones being accused of being universalists (they aren't, by the way), but this appears to be a in-house fight.

That being said, I can sympathize with the poor Calvinist here. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they take the wrath of God seriously—and they do—and the love of God seriously—and they do—what are their options? They believe that God, in some mysterious way for purposes known only to him, chose some to be saved (some Calvinists go further and say he chose others to be condemned). How do you reconcile these? I know the mental gymnastics and theological arguments, but they fail to convince me.

The Wesleyan, on the other hand, doesn't need to consider the universalist option. They believe that God, by his prevenient grace (grace that comes before), raises a person from depravity far enough that they are able to make an informed decision for or against God. Mind you, this is all by grace! But, it is a real decision. The sinner chose to reject God. Now, I would go a step further and agree with Augustine that the Holy Spirit is "the hound of heaven," in other words, he doesn't give up, but keeps pursuing the sinner.

Just an
</idle musing>

But, what would Calvin say?

Hey, I read Calvin—probably as much or more than some Reformed people do :) Anyway, I just ran across this last week:

...all the blessings that we enjoy are Divine deposits, committed to our trust on this condition,that they should be dispensed for the benefit of our neighbours...Whatever God has conferred on us, which enables us to assist our neighbour, we are the stewards of it, and must one day render an account of our stewardship; and that the only right dispensation of what has been committed to us, is that which is regulated by the law of love.—John Calvin, Instititutes III.vii.5

<idle musing>
Isn't that good? We hear about the Protestant Work Ethic, but we rarely hear what Calvin suggested we do with the increase...good advice.
</idle musing>