John Calvin often gets caricatured for a variety of reasons; the unfortunate thing about such caricatures is they keep people from benefiting from some very rich theology that he offers in the whole of his oeuvre. What I appreciate most about Calvin’s theology is both his union with Christ (unio cum Christo) and double grace (duplex gratia) motifs. Both emphasize in very Pauline and
Christologically rich ways what a good participationist soteriology should look like, and yet most miss this because they get hung up on his thinking in regard to God’s decretive activities, and his doctrine of double predestination (both things I recently critiqued him on through Barth and Torrance in my personal chapter in our EC2 book). But note the following; here in a pretty famous passage from Calvin’s Institutes we see just this kind of participationist emphasis that we might even mistake for some patristic theologian’s offering. Calvin writes:
We must now examine this question. How do we receive those benefits which the Father bestowed on his only-begotten Son—not for Christ’s own private use, but that he might enrich poor and needy men? First, we must understand that as long as Christ remains outside of us, and we are separated from him, all that he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value for us. Therefore, to share with us what he has received from the Father, he had to become ours and to dwell within us. For this reason, he is called “our Head” [Eph. 4:15], and “the first-born among many brethren” [Rom. 8:29]. We also, in turn, are said to be “engrafted into him” [Rom. 11:17], and to “put on Christ” [Gal. 3:37]; for, as I have said, all that he possesses is nothing to us until we grow into one body with him. It is true that we obtain this by faith. Yet since we see that not all indiscriminately embrace that communion with Christ which is offered through the gospel, reason itself teaches us to climb higher and to examine into the secret energy of the Spirit, by which we come to enjoy Christ and all his benefits.[1]
Do you see what I mean? For Calvin, the whole of salvation is accomplished in the vicarious humanity of Jesus Christ (we might even mistake this for Barth or Torrance — but they receive such emphases from Calvin, actually). For Calvin, Justification/Sanctification and ultimately Glorification are all resplendent and present in Jesus Christ; our only hope is to be united to him by the Spirit in the bond of faith.
But if you follow all the caricatures of Calvin’s theology you’ll naively end up thinking that he was the foment of some of the most hideous monstrous theology on planet earth. As the passage above should illustrate you and your caricature would be severely out of place.
Note: I am taking a break from Facebook. This post will automatically feed through to Facebook, so anyone reading this from there, if you’d like to interact, then leave a comment in the thread of this post here at the blog.
[1] Calvin, Institutes 3.1.1.
Pingback: Getting Past the Caricatures of Calvin: Calvin the ‘in Christ’ Participatory Theologian — The Evangelical Calvinist | Talmidimblogging
I don’t know if I can believe this anymore; this inclusion view that says all are IN Christ unless they adamantly choose to be out. I came across this blog concerning this and I thought it was compelling: https://escapetoreality.org/2014/12/12/scriptures-inclusionism-cannot-explain/
Sad, really. I thought I found some hope for assurance.
Rob, I’m not sure what you’re referring to ie “unless they adamantly choose to be out.” That’s not the view we hold to in evangelical calvinism. It’s not what Barth taught. It’s not what Torrance taught. It’s not what Athanasius taught. And I critiqued Calvin in my chapter based on all that.
That blog post doesn’t really pose the problem you seem to think.
Rob,
It’s not as simple as proof texting, by the way. If you think that’s how exegesis is done, then I do feel bad for you; and you won’t find assurance of salvation anywhere. You’ll be swayed back and forth between the winds of the proof texts here and there. I’d hoped you had spent more time reading my posts on theological exegesis; I’d also hoped that you had exposed yourself to good sound literature on the reality of theological exegesis and how that works; and how EVERYONE does it (even the proof texting blog you linked me to). You can still have assurance of salvation, but you have to be willing to think through the reality of the homoousion of God in Christ, and allow that to regulate the way you approach the interpretation of Scripture. I have zero problem responding to the verses that blog site posts, by the way. It’s interesting how people, at least people who want to be orthodox Christians will affirm Chalcedonian Christology, but that then when it comes to biblical exegesis they abandoned that reality as the central truth that it is and approach Scripture through a fragmented rationalism that will indeed end up being destructive for people in their own walks and spirituality in Christ. That’s too bad. I’m sorry you’ve seemed to given up too quickly, and you haven’t really engaged with me that much to hash anything out. Too bad. I’d hoped you were more of a fighter than that.