tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post1550682456890985227..comments2024-03-15T09:07:15.798-07:00Comments on NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: Did John Calvin believe in "double imputation"?Nickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-67478462771980174832013-05-19T22:21:48.824-07:002013-05-19T22:21:48.824-07:00I don't think their doctrine of Sola Fide was ...I don't think their doctrine of Sola Fide was as systematic as future Protestants made it to be. <br /><br />For Luther and Calvin, it was enough that faith alone justifies, and that this justification consisted essentially in forgiveness of sins, through Christ's Passive Obedience. They probably saw the covenant with Adam as having been a unique covenant, not the "Covenant of Works," but just a special arrangement that when broken was permanently broken. Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-76787667052164496732013-05-08T16:48:07.040-07:002013-05-08T16:48:07.040-07:00So if neither Luther nor Calvin believed in a cove...So if neither Luther nor Calvin believed in a covenant of works, what was their doctrine of sola fide built from? Christienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-31489894401740280082013-05-06T21:45:51.793-07:002013-05-06T21:45:51.793-07:00Correct. Correct. Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-19548292990671231382013-05-06T17:15:14.550-07:002013-05-06T17:15:14.550-07:00Nick,
So Calvin did believe that one's sins/g...Nick,<br /><br />So Calvin did believe that one's sins/guilt/punishment were imputed to Christ on the cross, and His righteousness (only passive obedience) was imputed onto believers' accounts, right? Just without the additional keep-the-law-perfectly-in-one's-place aspect of righteousness?<br /><br />--ChristieChristienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-56882312903799830242012-06-11T09:37:44.413-07:002012-06-11T09:37:44.413-07:00Anon,
I would agree with what you're saying;...Anon, <br /><br />I would agree with what you're saying; I'm just speaking about Faith as Protestants understand it.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-45929945517092602442012-06-09T01:21:29.334-07:002012-06-09T01:21:29.334-07:00Nick, Maybe you could address the concept of Fait...Nick, Maybe you could address the concept of Faith as a virtue rather than an empty hand. Is it not correct to say that Faith justifies, in initial justification, because it is an act of the intellect MOVED BY THE WILL? The will is moved by love of some good, in this case God. Of course, love can later be lost resulting in a dead Faith. But Faith is not a vacant conduit but rather a dynamic principle within us by which we can adhere to the entire Revelation ( Trinity, Mary,Papacy,etc. ) and not just that "Christ died in my stead"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-70898673174288894032012-06-05T09:37:20.834-07:002012-06-05T09:37:20.834-07:00Nick,
Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification, whic...Nick,<br /><br />Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification, which makes a lot more sense than what I thought you were saying. Frankly, I don't really care to split hairs on just where to draw the line between "Active" and "Passive" obedience, so long as we both agree that Calvin believed that Christ had fulfilled the entire law--or else--as you say--he would not have been a worthy sacrifice. But I also hope that you see that his record of perfect law-keeping is thereby entailed by the perfect sacrifice. That's how Calvin can use imputational language to the effect that Christ's obedience is credited to us, "as if it were our own." This--it seems to me--means we get the entire package and not only the forgiveness. In other words, we are both pardoned (gratuitiously) and reckoned as "righteous," and this righteousness is completely alien, in that it is not our own, but rather from God himself. That's all a round about way of saying salvation is by grace and not of ourselves. <br /><br />Now if only we could get Rome on board with this, right?Michael Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15959325406204766596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-8098136280124415362012-06-04T15:29:22.443-07:002012-06-04T15:29:22.443-07:00Hello Miguel,
I came to the conclusion Calvin ha...Hello Miguel, <br /><br />I came to the conclusion Calvin had Passive Obedience only in mind because of (a) the language he used never suggested anything along the lines of us needing more than forgiveness, and (b) the Scriptures he cites were heavily of the PO sort. <br /><b>It turns out that, historically, there has been a minority of Reformed that believe in Passive Obedience only, even at the Westminster Confession assembly.</b><br /><br />You said: <br />"In other words, Christ *only* fulfilled the sacrificial demands of the law, but no other part of it in Paul's and Calvin's mind. Nick--that's more than obtuse--that's ridiculous as far as a conclusion goes."<br /><br />I think you're missing my point because you're approaching this from the totally wrong angle. Christ fulfilled the entire Law because the entire Law pointed to Him. He kept all the moral requirements IN ORDER TO make himself a worthy Sacrifice, and from the moment of His incarnation He suffered in various ways. So the idea that *I* am suggesting Calvin only held to keeping *part* of the Law and ignoring the other is totally misunderstanding the Passive Obedience Only position. (Remember, I didn't make up Passive Obedience Only, a minority of Calvinists has argued this for centuries.)<br /><br />Christ's Righteousness in the Passive Obedience Only camp is the only righteousness there is, and it comes strictly from the Cross. This view of righteousness can be confusing from people used to seeing righteousness in strictly 'law keeping' categories.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-51598754596193530502012-05-31T05:40:33.618-07:002012-05-31T05:40:33.618-07:00Nick::
You said...>>the catch is that Calvi...Nick::<br /><br />You said...>>the catch is that Calvin has in mind Passive Obedience only.<<<br /><br />That's simply laughable. Like I said before, this is your apriori. And your motivation appears to be nothing more than your desire to pit Calvin against later Calvinists. But where do you get the idea that it is "passive obedience only?" <br /><br /><br />Nick>>Christ was the fulfillment of the Law in the sense of setting Himself up to be the perfect Passover Lamb. Any notions of Active Obedience are read into the text.<<<br /><br />In other words, Christ *only* fulfilled the sacrificial demands of the law, but no other part of it in Paul's and Calvin's mind. Nick--that's more than obtuse--that's ridiculous as far as a conclusion goes. <br /><br />Think about it, Nick. Do you really think Paul and Calvin believed that Christ only fulfilled the law *passively* rather than *actively*?<br /><br />Or do you believe that they thought that only the *passive* part of his obedience was imputed to us? And how would you begin to support that meaningfully from their writings?Michael Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15959325406204766596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-72602462587097904142012-05-30T13:21:39.507-07:002012-05-30T13:21:39.507-07:00Hello Miguel,
Yes, I did "actually read tho...Hello Miguel, <br /><br />Yes, I did "actually read those sections". The words "solely because of the obedience of Christ" is perfectly compatible with all I've said...the catch is that Calvin has in mind Passive Obedience only. <br /><br />It surely is a 'both/and': Christ's Passive obedience AND remission of sins. <br /><br />Christ was the fulfillment of the Law in the sense of setting Himself up to be the perfect Passover Lamb. Any notions of Active Obedience are read into the text. So while it's readily granted that Calvin believed Christ never sinned and kept the Law perfectly, that in itself was not a 'ground' for our Justification.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-30778973866494186202012-05-29T13:37:48.704-07:002012-05-29T13:37:48.704-07:00Hello Nick,
You said: I *did* indeed give Calvin...Hello Nick,<br /><br />You said: I *did* indeed give Calvin the benefit of the doubt when he said "this justification consists in the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ (see sec. 21 and 23)". <br /><br />Yes--but did you actually read those sections? Take section 23, as an example. Note the following words: >>Here the only fulfillment [of the law] to which he [Paul] refers is that which we obtain by imputation. Our Lord Jesus Christ communicates his righteousness to us, and so by some wondrous ways in so far as pertains to the justice of Gods transfuses its power into us. That this was the Apostle’s view is abundantly clear from another sentiment which he had expressed a little before: “As by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous,” (Rom. 5:19). To declare that we are deemed righteous, solely because the obedience of Christ is imputed to us as if it where our own, is just to place our righteousness in the obedience of Christ.<<<br /><br />Did you see the words, "solely because of the obedience of Christ"?<br /><br />So which is it, Nick? Is our righteousness "solely remission" or "solely obedience"? Or--and I hope you're on board with me--is it "both/and"?<br /><br />The problem with your reading of Calvin is that you're taking some of his comments and placing them in opposition to his other comments on the same subject. You need to read Calvin both in context but also with respect to the totality of what he is saying on justification.<br /><br />Like I said before, your argument boils down to the following:<br /><br />1. Both A (remission) and B (obedience) are entailed by righteousness.<br />2. But Calvin then says, "solely remission" (A) in several places.<br />3. Therefore he must mean "solely remission," A rather than B.<br /><br />I hope you can see the fallacy in your thinking. <br /><br />In point of fact, he can speak "solely" of remission and "solely" of obedience, depending on the context.<br /><br />But how is this possible? The answer is that Calvin sometimes talks about justification in terms of its result (remission/pardon/forgiveness) and sometimes in terms of its basis (i.e. Christ's obedience imputed to his elect.)<br /><br />Now you would have us believe that Calvin believed only in the "passive obedience" of Christ. But that isn't true. The very texts that Calvin himself cites prove that Calvin understood Christ to be the "fulfillment" of the law. This comes not simply by dying on a cross, but also by keeping the law perfectly--by not sinning.<br /><br />Calvin surely believed that Christ obeyed the law perfectly and that he was sinless. So when Calvin says >>the obedience of Christ is imputed to us as if it where our own, is just to place our righteousness in the obedience of Christ<< he is clearly speaking to what later Calvinists mean by active and passive obedience, though Calvin himself didn't use those categories.<br /><br />Again Nick, just as on the Catholic Answers forums, you continue to show yourself to be an unreliable interpreter of the Reformed tradition in general, and of Calvin in particular. <br /><br />I think you're forcing Calvin into a pre-conceived straightjacket of your own fantasy so that you can pit him against those who took his ideas and developed them with more precision.<br /><br />But if you were consistent, then you'd hold your own tradition to the same standard. Quite obviously later theologians are going to take the ideas of earlier theologians and refine them. That happens in Romanism all the time and the explanation Roman apologists give (and often reasonably so) is that doctrine has "developed" over time. Well--if you're going to give your tradition latitude in that regard, then you ought to be consistent and do the same for other traditions.Michael Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15959325406204766596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-32388202184016235082012-05-25T15:34:58.834-07:002012-05-25T15:34:58.834-07:00Hello Miguel,
I *did* indeed give Calvin the ben...Hello Miguel, <br /><br />I *did* indeed give Calvin the benefit of the doubt when he said "<b>this justification consists in the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ (see sec. 21 and 23)</b>". <br />That's precisely why I continued to quote the rest of the chapter. And notice what this quote says: "<b>see sec. 21 and 23</b>"<br />That's key here as well, for these sections are exactly where Calvin explicitly says justification "<b>consists solely in the remission of sins</b>" and "<b>justification may be termed in one word, the remission of sins</b>". That's the last thing he should say if justification is more than forgiveness.<br /><br />I in fact strongly concluded that Calvin was not being inconsistent at all, but rather meant something other than what the modern understanding of "imputation of righteousness of Christ" means. Calvin views it as a righteousness based on passive obedience only. If you read the *entire* chapter 11, you will see he nowhere ever quotes any passage of Scripture with the idea or comment of an "active obedience" needing to be required. That's one aspect of this that you need to address: Calvin's Biblical proof-texts. <br /><br />What Calvin had to have meant was that imputation of Christ's righteousness was an integral part of forgiveness. It is as if filthy clothes were removed and a clean robe placed on us. This clean robe is Christ's righteousness, but it is clean in the sense of spotlessness, not in the sense of a 1st place championship jacket.<br /><br />Consider more of the plain language Calvin uses and you can judge how much I'm making things up:<br /><br />-"To justify, therefore, is nothing else than to acquit from the charge of guilt, as if innocence were proved."<br /><br />-"after obtaining the pardon of sins he was regarded in the sight of God as righteous. He was justified, therefore, not by any approval of works, but by gratuitous acquittal on the part of God."<br /><br />-sec6 "Christ is himself our righteousness...by expiating sins, appeased the Father"<br /><br />-"being supported by the expiation of Christ, we are able to stand at the tribunal of God"<br /><br />-"he can neither receive him into favor, nor unite him to himself, without changing his condition from that of a sinner into that of a righteous man. We add, that this is done by remission of sins"<br /><br />-"the only way in which those whom God embraces are made righteous, is by having their pollutions wiped away by the remission of sins"<br /><br />-"(Rom. 4:6; Ps. 32:1, 2). There he undoubtedly uses blessedness for righteousness; and as he declares that it consists in forgiveness of sins, there is no reason why we should define it otherwise"<br /><br />-"(Acts 13:38, 39). Thus the Apostle connects forgiveness of sins with justification in such a way as to show that they are altogether the same"<br /><br />-"Christ is our righteousness in absolution"Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-8666068382942052842012-05-24T13:53:13.794-07:002012-05-24T13:53:13.794-07:00Nick,
I had said:
"No where does Calvin say...Nick,<br /><br />I had said:<br /><br />"No where does Calvin say that Christ's obedience reduces *solely* to the pardoning of sins."<br /><br />Nick>>Yes, Calvin does say that very thing: "justification by faith is reconciliation with God, and that this consists solely in the remission of sins" AND "justification may be termed in one word the remission of sins".<<<br /><br />Sorry, Nick. But you have to read both of these in light of what he previously said about justification. You're unnecessarily forcing Calvin into self-contradiction. You hint at such when you said: "but as we proceed through the chapter, it seems he either becomes inconsistent or meant something else..."<br /><br />So let's start with what Calvin did say:<br /><br />Calvin: thus we simply interpret justification, as the acceptance with which God receives us into his favor as if we were righteous; and we say that this justification consists in the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ (see sec. 21 and 23).<br /><br />If Calvin said this (and he did), and if we are to give him the benefit of the doubt of consistency (which I do give him, but which you question), then the only way to understand the quotes you provided in your refutation is to read them in broad context.<br /><br />To wit--Calvin can say, on the one hand, that "justification consists in the forgiveness of sin and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ..", but on the other that "justification by faith is reconciliation with God, and that this consists solely in the remission of sins," as you rightly quote, but poorly understand.<br /><br />On your reading, Calvin isn't being consistent. What was A (remission) and B (imputation) is now just A (remission).<br /><br />But if you unpack what he means be the remission of sins, then I think you'll see that it is not simply the pardon of guilt or the decision of God not to count our sins against us, but that it also demands the satisfaction of the penalty due to sin, and this can only be done by a positive act of righteousness--in this case--Christ's perfect life of obedience culminating in the cross. <br /><br />That's why I say Calvin is being consistent and not contradicting what he said earlier when he spoke of justification as both forgiveness and imputed righteousness.<br /><br />Again--just going by the very quotes you provide us, we can safely conclude that Calvin would have accepted the active/passive distinction even though such terms belong to later Calvinism.Michael Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15959325406204766596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-49461324129791365982012-05-23T15:46:19.251-07:002012-05-23T15:46:19.251-07:00Hello Miguel,
You said:
"No where does Cal...Hello Miguel, <br /><br />You said: <br />"No where does Calvin say that Christ's obedience reduces *solely* to the pardoning of sins."<br /><br />Yes, Calvin does say that very thing: "justification by faith is reconciliation with God, and that this consists solely in the remission of sins" AND "justification may be termed in one word the remission of sins". <br />Take any text you'd like and let's see what he says. He addresses many Protestant favorites. Calvin even explicitly said at times that justification is found solely in the pardon of sins. I'm not making this stuff up.<br /><br />You said: <br />"If we are treated as if were were innocent, then Christ's innocence must be imputed to us as well. But innocence is nothing more than a one-word description for the perfect record of keeping the law."<br /><br />Calvin could be differentiating between innocence and forgiveness at times, but I see it as two sides of the same passive coin. Nothing about "innocence" suggests perfect obedience. Adam was 'innocent' originally. <br /><br />Look at section 2 where Calvin describes the innocent man is one who is "removed from the catalogue of sinners," which is clearly a reference to forgiveness. And in section 3, "To justify is nothing else than to acquit from the charge of guilt, as if innocence were proved." This is even more direct. You are reading foreign concepts into Calvin's use of the term "innocence".Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-65379970531768673952012-05-20T11:21:12.444-07:002012-05-20T11:21:12.444-07:00Nick,
Here's the conclusion of your analysis ...Nick,<br /><br />Here's the conclusion of your analysis of the Institutes 3.XI.23:<br /><br />>>Thus concludes the most important and definitive Chapter Calvin writes regarding Justification. To the very end (i.e. the very end of Section 23), Calvin does not cease to appeal to many Protestant "favorite" texts - including Romans 5:19, speaking of Christ's Obedience, which many Protestants take as solid proof for Active Obedience - yet in every case he reduces it to the same thing: pardoning of sins.<<<br /><br />How you arrive at this over reductionist conclusion frankly boggles the mind. No where does Calvin say that Christ's obedience reduces *solely* to the pardoning of sins. That's your view--not Calvin's.<br /><br />That said, I think you also fail to consider the basis for the pardoning of sin. There has to be both the divine mercy and justice in our pardon. God acquits us by finding us not guilty. But notice too that Calvin says more than simply "not guilty." Back in section 2 of the same chapter, he says we are treated as if we were innocent. Now unpack that for a minute. If we are treated as if were were innocent, then Christ's innocence must be imputed to us as well. But innocence is nothing more than a one-word description for the perfect record of keeping the law. In section 23, we see Christ's active obedience is imputed to us, "as if it were our own." Thus the basis for our forgiveness is his mercy and the basis for our innocence is his justice (righteousness), both of which are imputed to us.<br /><br />At the cross we receive both God's mercy (passive obedience in accepting the wrath of God in our place) and Christ's active obedience (the fulfillment of the law). Jesus is both just and the justifier of the sinner. We are not only acquitted/pardoned, we are also declared righteous so that there can be no charge that God let guilty men (and women) go scott-free. Not at all. He let his elect go free because he considers them to be not only "not guilty" but also "innocent of all charges." This he can only do if Christ is both perfectly just and merciful at the cross.<br /><br />Calvin may not have used the language of later Calvinism (active/passive distinctions), but surely he would have agreed with the refinement, as the citations from the Institutes that you provided plainly show.Michael Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15959325406204766596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-67636939070294935302011-07-15T17:04:22.567-07:002011-07-15T17:04:22.567-07:00Hi John,
I tried to read the section as carefull...Hi John, <br /><br />I tried to read the section as carefully as possible when laying out the quotes, and I tried to point out any quotes that could be taken in a Double Imputation manner (but didn't necessitate such) so as to show I wasn't selectively quoting. In the end, especially the concluding sections, it became very clear that Active Obedience wasn't on Calvin's radar.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-5711695909379077352011-07-15T14:29:09.671-07:002011-07-15T14:29:09.671-07:00Nick
Some time ago when you drew attention to thi...Nick<br /><br />Some time ago when you drew attention to this post on my blog I read it and started to write a response.<br /><br />I found some quotes in the section you are quoting from in the Institutes that seemed to add Christ's life.<br /><br />Then I got involved in something else and never got round to replying.<br /><br />My apologies. This is still not the response for I will need to look and see if I can find the quotes.<br /><br />I may be wrong, but I thought that although Calvin stresses the justification of the cross and defines it as forgiveness of sins he seems to include at times the idea of a life lived imputed. But I may be wrong. At any rate thanks for writing about this and I do agree that some modern reformers want to credit Calvin with ideas that, at best, were later and muted.John Thomsonhttp://johngreenview.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com