The Reformed Christian Muse

Q37: What do you understand by the word “suffered”?
A37: That all the time He lived on earth, but especially at the end of His life, He bore, in body and soul, the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race; in order that by His suffering, as the only atoning sacrifice, He might redeem our body and soul from everlasting damnation, and obtain for us the grace of God, righteousness and eternal life.

I want to revisit this Q&A from Lord’s Day 15 of the Heidelburg Catechism. I have already posted this but did not comment on it. This clearly shows a more moderate Calvinistic view of the suffering of Christ for the sin of the “whole human race” than is found to be more popular today. This same idea of sufficiency is also expressed in the Cannons of Dort here:

The Canons of Dort, Second Head of Doctrine
The Death of Christ, and the Redemption of Men Thereby - Articles of Faith

Article 6
And, whereas many who are called by the gospel do not repent nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief, this is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves.

If we compare these two statements from the 3 Forms of Unity can we not properly infer that the unbelief and rejection of the gospel is “wholly to be imputed” to the unbeliever because there is nothing lacking in the atonement for him because the unbeliever, being a member of the human race, Christ in his place bore his wrath against his sin according to Q&A 37?

Blessings in Christ,
Terry W. West

I want to throw out a question. I have been following the debate concerning the sacraments for sometime now. The impression I get from time to time is that when it comes to the administration of the sacraments we become almost pelegian in practice? What I mean is this, it seems that we tend to think of the participation in the sacraments as a mere human act of the will that may or may not have any real benefit, but the secret work of the Spirit in the heart is seen as that which is truly sovereign. Its as if we have without meaning to compartmentalized the two experiences in the church. But what if we really begin to view even the external things in the church as just as much sovereign acts of God as we do the internal regeneration that the Spirit works in the heart of those who have true faith? How would this impact our thinking and our theological development? Just thinking out loud.

Blessings in Christ,
Terry W. West

Q59:  But what does it help you now, that you believe all this?
A59:  That I am righteous in Christ before God, and an heir of eternal life.[1]

1.  Hab. 2:4; Rom. 1:17; 5:1; 8:16; John 3:36; Titus 3:7

Q60:  How are you righteous before God?
A60:  Only by true faith in Jesus Christ:[1] that is, although my conscience accuses me, that I have grievously sinned against all the commandments of God, and have never kept any of them,[2] and am still prone always to all evil;[3] yet God, without any merit of mine,[4] of mere grace,[5] grants and imputes to me the perfect satisfaction,[6] righteousness and holiness of Christ,[7] as if I had never committed nor had any sins, and had myself accomplished all the obedience which Christ has fulfilled for me;[8] if only I accept such benefit with a believing heart.[9]

1.  Rom. 3:21-25; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8-9; Phil. 3:9
2.  Rom. 3:9-10
3.  Rom. 7:23
4.  Titus 3:5
5.  Rom. 3:24; Eph. 2:8
6.  I John 2:2
7.  I John 2:1; Rom. 4:4-5; II Cor. 5:19
8.  II Cor. 5:21
9.  John 3:18; Rom. 3:28; 10:10

Q61:  Why do you say that you are righteous by faith only?
A61:  Not that I am acceptable to God on account of the worthiness of my faith, but because only the satisfaction, righteousness and holiness of Christ is my righteousness before God;[1] and I can receive the same and make it my own in no other way than by faith only.[2]

1.  I Cor. 1:30; 2:2
2.  I John 5:10; Isa. 53:5; Gal. 3:22; Rom. 4:16

The Holy Ghost, proceeding from the Father and the Son, is of one substance, majesty, and glory, with the Father and the Son, very and eternal God.

But while I write to you like this about N. N., something else occurs to me about which there is reason enough urging me to write you, both by way of inquiry and also to state my own opinion. As I do this with all freedom, so will it be up to you whenever you have leisure to indicate your own opinion. I do not press for an answer, being well aware that you are overwhelmed by important matters.

Men do not all agree concerning the communion which we have with the body of Christ and the substance of his nature; for what reason, I suppose you will hear. It is so important that he that is Christ’s should understand the mode (ratio) of his union with him.

First, it seems to me that he was pleased (as is said in the Epistle to the Hebrews [2.14] to communicate with us, in flesh and blood, by the benefit of his incarnation. ‘Since the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same’.

But unless some other kind of communion were offered us, this would be very general and feeble; for the whole human race already has communion with Christ in this manner. They are in fact men, as he was man.

So besides that communion this is added, that in due season faith is breathed into the elect whereby they may believe in Christ. Thus are they not only forgiven their sins and reconciled to God (in which the true and solid method of justification consists) but further there is added a renewing power of the spirit, by which our bodies also–flesh, blood and nature–are made capable of immortality, and become daily more and more in Christ’s form (Christiformia) as I may say. Not that they cast aside the substance of their own nature and pass into the very body and flesh of Christ, but that they no less approach him in spiritual gifts and properties than at birth they naturally communicated with him in body, flesh and blood.

Here, then, we have two communions with Christ (duas communiones cum Christo), the one natural, which we draw from our parents at birth, while the other comes to us by the Spirit of Christ. At the very time of regeneration we are by him made new according to the image of his glory.

I believe that between these two communions there is an intermediate one which is fount and origin of all the heavenly and spiritual likeness which we have with Christ. It is that by which, as soon as we believe, we obtain Christ himself our true Head, and are made his members. Whence, from the Head himself as Paul says [Eph. 4.16] his Spirit flows and is derived through the joints and ligaments into ourselves as his true and legitimate members. Wherefore this communion with our Head is prior, in nature at least though perhaps not in time, to that later communion which is introduced through regeneration. And here, it seems to me, natural reason helps us. We are taught that in things engendered the heart itself is formed first in infants. From it by a certain vein a spirit flows from the heart and in some way pierces the prepared matter of the living creature and there shapes the head. Thus by that vein through which spirit proceeds from heart, the head is joined to the heart. Again, by another vein spirit flows from the head and afterwards forms the liver, an organ that communicates with head and heart, by the arteries or veins which knit together. From the liver, moreover, and the other principal members there are other arteries or veins reaching to the other parts of the whole, by which the same engendering spirit passing through, fashions the other members. Thus it happens that they all communicate together, and are joined especially to the heart, that is to the fountain of life-not indeed in place or immediate contact (as they call it) but because from thence they draw the quickening spirit and life, by the wondrous workmanship of the highest artificer.

Peter Martyr Vermigli (A.D. 1499-1562)

Peter Martyr, “Calvin, Strasbourg 8 March 1555,” in The Life, Early Letters & Eucharistic Writings of Peter Martyr, ed., by J.C. McLelland and G.E. Duffield (Sutton Courtney Press, 1989), pp., 345-347.

We believe that the Holy Scriptures are contained in two books, namely, the Old and the New Testament, which are canonical, against which nothing can be alleged. These are thus named in the Church of God.
The books of the Old Testament are the five books of Moses, to wit: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; the book of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the two books of Samuel, the two of the Kings, two books of the Chronicles, [commonly called Paralipomenon, the first of] Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther; Job, the Psalms [of David], the three books of Solomon, namely, the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; the four great prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, {Lamentations,} Ezekiel, and Daniel; and the twelve lesser prophets, namely, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.

Those of the New Testament are the four evangelists, to wit: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles; the thirteen epistles of the apostle Paul, namely, one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, one to Philemon; Hebrews; the seven epistles of the other apostles, namely, one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude; and the Revelation of the apostle John.

Q57:  What comfort do you receive from the “resurrection of the body”?
A57:  That not only my soul after this life shall be immediately taken up to Christ its Head,[1] but also that this my body, raised by the power of Christ, shall be reunited with my soul, and made like unto the glorious body of Christ.[2]

1.  Luke 23:43; Phil. 1:21-23
2.  I Cor. 15:53-54; Job 19:25-27; I John 3:2

Q58:  What comfort do you receive from the article “life everlasting”?
A58:  That, inasmuch as I now feel in my heart the beginning of eternal joy,[1] I shall after this life possess complete blessedness, such as eye has not seen, nor ear heard, neither has entered into the heart of man,[2] therein to praise God forever.[3]

1.  II Cor. 5:2-3
2.  I Cor. 2:9
3.  John 17:3; Rom. 8:23; I Peter 1:8

Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of Man’s nature; wherewith he ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to judge all Men at the last day.

As Christ died for us, and was buried; so also it is to be believed, that he went down into Hell.

Q54:  What do you believe concerning the “Holy Catholic Church”?
A54:  That out of the whole human race,[1] from the beginning to the end of the world,[2] the Son of God,[3] by His Spirit and Word,[4] gathers, defends and preserves for Himself unto everlasting life a chosen communion [5] in the unity of the true faith;[6] and that I am and forever shall remain a living member of this communion.[7]

1.  Gen. 26:4
2.  John 10:10
3.  Eph. 1:10-13
4.  Rom. 1:16; 10:14-17; Isa. 59:21; Eph. 5:26
5.  Rom. 8:29-30; Matt. 16:18; Eph. 4:3-6
6.  Acts 2:46; Psa. 71:18; I Cor. 1:8-9; 11:26; John 10:28-30
7.  I John 2:19; 3:21; Gal. 3:28

Q55:  What do you understand by the “communion of saints”?
A55:  First, that believers, one and all, as members of the Lord Jesus Christ, are partakers with Him in all His treasures and gifts;[1] second, that each one must feel himself bound to use his gifts readily and cheerfully for the advantage and welfare of other members.[2]

1.  I John 1:3
2.  I Cor. 12:12-13, 21; 13:5-6; Phil. 2:4-6; Heb. 3:14

Q56:  What do you believe concerning the “forgiveness of sins”?
A56:  That God, for the sake of Christ’s satisfaction,[1] will no more remember my sins, nor the sinful nature with which I have to struggle all my life long;[2] but graciously imputes to me the righteousness of Christ, that I may nevermore come into condemnation.[3]

1.  I John 2:2
2.  II Cor. 5:19, 21; Rom. 7:24-25; 8:1-4; Psa. 103:3, 10, 12; Jer. 31:34
3.  John. 3:18; Eph. 1:7; Rom. 4:7-8; 7:18

The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took Man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance: so that two whole and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God, and very Man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men.

We confess that this Word of God was not sent nor delivered by the will of man, but that men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit, as the apostle Peter says; and that afterwards God, from a special care which He has for us and our salvation, commanded His servants, the prophets and apostles, to commit His revealed word to writing; and He Himself wrote with His own finger the two tables of the law. Therefore we call such writings holy and divine Scriptures.

Q53:  What do you believe concerning the “Holy Ghost”?
A53:  First, that He is coeternal God with the Father and the Son.[1] Second, that He is also given unto me:[2] by true faith makes me a partaker of Christ and all His benefits,[3] comforts me,[4] and shall abide with me forever.[5]

1.  Gen. 1:2; Isa. 48:16; I Cor. 3:16; 6:19; Acts 5:3-4
2.  Matt. 28:19; II Cor. 1:21-22
3.  I Peter 1:2; I Cor. 6:17
4.  Acts 9:31
5.  John 14:16; I Peter 4:14; I John 4:13; Rom. 15:13

 I posted this in the comment section at De Regno Christi in response to this post by D. Hart. I thought I would go ahead and post it here as well.

Trueman says: “Deny the covenant of works, for example, and one implicitly denies the whole structure of justification taught in the standards.”

The problem I have with this sentence, is that it makes the COW an essential ingredient in a proper formulation of the doctrine of justification. If this is true than how did Calvin for example have a credible formulation of justification in the Institutes when the COW doesn’t even appear one time in the entire text? As matter of fact not only is the COW absent from the Institutes but there is found a statement by Calvin in which he expresses his dislike of the use of the term “merit” as it relates to human works.

Calvin says:
First, I must premise with regard to the term Merit, that he, whoever he was, that first applied it to human works, viewed in reference to the divine tribunal, consulted very ill for the purity of the faith. I willingly abstain from disputes about words, but I could wish that Christian writers had always observed this soberness—that when there was no occasion for it, they had never thought of using terms foreign to the Scriptures—terms which might produce much offense, but very little fruit. I ask, what need was there to introduce the word Merit, when the value of works might have been fully expressed by another term, and without offense? The quantity of offense contained in it the world shows to its great loss. It is certain that, being a high sounding term, it can only obscure the grace of God, and inspire men with pernicious pride.

John Calvin - From INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, Book 3, Chapter 15, Section 2

So, if we are to say that the COW (defined in such a way that makes meritorious human works the bases of receiving favor from God) is essential to a proper formulation of justification, then how did Calvin get justification right?

For what it’s worth I would have agreed whole heartily  with Trueman a year ago, but I am finding that the CoW as defined in our modern reformed thought is absent in the early generations of the Reformers.

Blessings in Christ,
Terry W. West

There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in the unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

I really like the way that both the 39 Articles and the Belgic Confession begin  with  a statement of God’s existence, but I think the 39 articles is the best of the two confessions because it includes in a declarations of the Trinity.

Blessings in Christ,
Terry W. West

We know Him by two means: First, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe; which is before our eyes as a most elegant book, wherein all creatures, great and small, are as so many characters leading us to see clearly the invisible things of God, even his everlasting power and divinity, as the apostle Paul says (Rom. 1:20). All which things are sufficient to convince men and leave them without excuse. Second, He makes Himself more clearly and fully known to us by His holy and divine Word, that is to say, as far as is necessary for us to know in this life, to His glory and our salvation.

We all believe with the heart and confess with the mouth that there is one only simple and spiritual Being, which we call God; and that He is eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, immutable, infinite, almighty, perfectly wise, just, good, and the overflowing fountain of all good.

Q51:  What does this glory of Christ, our Head, profit us?
A51:  First, that by His Holy Spirit He pours out heavenly gifts upon us, His members;[1] then, that by His power He defends and preserves us against all enemies.[2]

1.  Eph. 4:10-12
2.  Psa. 2:9; John 10:28-30; I Cor. 15:25-26; Acts 2:33

Q52:  What comfort is it to you that Christ “shall come to judge the living and the dead”?
A52:  That in all my sorrows and persecutions, I, with uplifted head, look for the very One, who offered Himself for me to the judgment of God, and removed all curse from me, to come as Judge from heaven,[1] who shall cast all His and my enemies into everlasting condemnation,[2] but shall take me with all His chosen ones to Himself into heavenly joy and glory.[3]

1.  Luke 21:28; Rom. 8:23-24; Phil. 3:20-21; Titus 2:13
2.  II Thess. 1:6, 10; Matt. 25:41
3.  I Thess. 4:16-18; Acts 1:10-11; Heb. 9:28

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 in works. How this is done is easily explained, if we turn to Christ only, to whom our faith is directed and from whom it derives all its power. Why, then, are we justified by faith? Because by faith we apprehend the righteousness of Christ, which alone reconciles us to God. This faith, however, you cannot apprehend without at the same time apprehending sanctification; for Christ “is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption,” (1 Cor. 1:30). Christ, therefore, justifies no man without also sanctifying him. These blessings are conjoined by a perpetual and inseparable tie. Those whom he enlightens by his wisdom he redeems; whom he redeems he justifies; whom he justifies he sanctifies. But as the question relates only to justification and sanctification,
to them let us confine ourselves. Though we distinguish between them, they are both inseparably comprehended in Christ. Would ye then obtain justification in Christ? You must previously possess Christ. But you cannot possess him without being made a partaker of his sanctification: for Christ
cannot be divided. Since the Lord, therefore, does not grant us the  enjoyment of these blessings without bestowing himself, he bestows both at once but never the one without the other. Thus it appears how true it is that we are justified not without, and yet not by works, since in the participation
of Christ, by which we are justified, is contained not less sanctification than justification.

John Calvin (A.D. 1509-1564) - From INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, Book 3, Chapter 16, Section 1

First, I must premise with regard to the term Merit, that he, whoever he was, that first applied it to human works, viewed in reference to the divine tribunal, consulted very ill for the purity of the faith. I willingly abstain from disputes about words, but I could wish that Christian writers had always observed this soberness—that when there was no occasion for it, they had never thought of using terms foreign to the Scriptures—terms which might produce much offense, but very little fruit. I ask, what need was there to introduce the word Merit, when the value of works might have been fully expressed by another term, and without offense? The quantity of offense contained in it the world shows to its great loss. It is certain that, being a high sounding term, it can only obscure the grace of God, and inspire men with pernicious pride.

John Calvin (A.D. 1509-1564) - From INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, Book 3, Chapter 15, Section 2