A friend sent me this:
For, since the fall of Adam had brought disgrace upon all his posterity, God restores those, whom He separates as His own, so that their condition may be better than that of all other nations. At the same time it must be remarked, that this grace of renewal is effaced in many who have afterwards profaned it. Consequently the Church is called God’s work and creation, in two senses, i.e., generally with respect to its outward calling, and specially with respect to spiritual regeneration, as far as regards the elect; for the covenant of grace is common to hypocrites and true believers. On this ground all whom God gathers into His Church, are indiscriminately said to be renewed and regenerated: but the internal renovation belongs to believers only; whom Paul, therefore, calls God’s “workmanship, created unto good works, which God hath prepared, etc.” (Ephesians 2:10.). Calvin, Deut 32:6
I would have gone to Romans 9 rather than Ephesians 2.10, since that was written “indiscriminately” to the Church of Ephesus. But the theology is excellent (and easily backed by many other writings in Calvin and other notables).
What I hear opponents of the FV saying is that FV people are leaving out the “but the internal renovation belongs to believers only” part. Whether or not they are leaving this out is another matter, but I do believe that is a common perception by opponents of the FV. Maybe if some people are being falsely accused on this matter it would be a good idea to very clearly state that this is not being denied (as you are doing in this post). If people are not clear with this, then it is easy to come away thinking that all are to be addressed as renewed and regenerated, precisely because all *are* renewed and regenerated (whether that transformation be of a temporary or permanent nature).
Ben
When I said “If people are not clear with this, then it is easy to come away thinking that all are to be addressed as renewed and regenerated, precisely because all *are* renewed and regenerated (whether that transformation be of a temporary or permanent nature).” I meant to say that “it is easy to come away thinking that FV proponents are calling for all to be addressed as renewed and regenerated, precisely because all *are* renewed and regenerated (whether that transformation be of a temporary or permanent nature).”
Yikes! What has become painfully obvious in this whole ridiculous debacle is how far from the original Reformers modern day Presbys have moved while all the time chanting the buzzwords of the solas and claiming to be defending the true spirit of the reformation.
What do critics do with quotes like these and tons of others you’ve posted in the past as well as Leithart and Wilson? It seems obvious that there is so much more than just the theology that is being argued but politics, a struggle to maintain influence, and, in my opinion, still some lingering dislike from the Christian Reconstruction/Theonomy debates years ago. Could be wrong. But a pound or two of these quotes and all beef should just stop with an acknowledgment that the FV guys are at least NOT heretics or corrupting the gospel. Sheesh.
Well, I posted the quote, and I’ve been assured of my guilt in the FV schism/heresy, so…
Did I leave out anything?
I don’t think you left anything out, but then again I am not accusing you of guilt.
Ben
Usually, I think I have heard the charge levelled against John Barach for his “head for head” comment and similar type statements. Of course a lot of times charges are laid out against “proponents of the FV” and so it is hard to know who or what is being condemned.
My point is that I have been repeatedly pull-quoted by Ph.D. owning church leaders whenever a phrase could be found to back up the idea “that FV people are leaving out the “but the internal renovation belongs to believers only” part.”
They simply leave out the fact, as in this post, that I teach far otherwise.
Could someone say that the way people are “indiscriminately called regenerate” is nothing more than the “judgement of charity”?
Yes, apparently God uses the judgment of charity.
And the membership in the covenant of grace would not be reducible to the JOC.
Hey Mark,
What interests me is that Calvin says they have effaced the grace of renewal. They had it, but that they annulled it. I scoped out the Latin for this. It has renovationis gratam. This is differentiated from his spiritual regeneration “regeneratione spirituali”. A little later he says all are said (assumed) to be renewed and regenerated. The Latin for regeneration is the same, but for renewed he seems to use, refingo. If you know anyone who knows Latin better than I do, please let me know. It seems to be a rare term for renewal.
It makes me wonder how often he speaks of the reprobate as being renewed by the grace of God and in what senses. I know his doctrine of regeneration was progressive, and that at times he spoke of regeneration being voided or negated. It would be interesting to dig deeper into Calvin on this.
Thanks
DavidP
“for the covenant of grace is common to hypocrites and true believers.”
They maybe part of the Covenant, but the hypocrite isn’t partaking of the “life” of the Covenant, because without God’s saving grace they the hypocrite won’t be transformed into a “living” member of the covenant.
Is that correct?
Thanks,
Kenny
Some the the notion of the COG belonging to the non-elect a step towards FVT. I think from this quote we can clearly see Calvin’s view of the COG encompasses those who are in covenant with God, yet not decretally elect.
So is it correct to say they are in the covenant, but not of the covenant because they aren’t living members of it?
Thank you Mark. After reading the Calvin statement the little light bulb turn on and gave way answers and questions.
Thank you again,
Ken
Kenny29, there are probably many correct ways of expressing it. Yours sounds fine. I tend to think this should be a question of pastoral context, not deciding on one perfect expression for all circumstances.
That’s an off-the-cuff thought, nothing more.
Louis Berkohf(systematic theology) pg 288 and 289 The Dual Aspects of the Covenant, reflects in my oppinion what Calvin is saying also, but with some more detail than the quote above.
Quick question…Isn’t there a difference between indiscriminately referring to the church as regenerated and renewed and arguing that nonelect persons actually experience regeneration in some sense? In commenting on Jeremiah 15 Calvin writes “The name of God is indeed called indiscriminately on all, who are deemed his people…yet many hypocrites are mixed with the elect of God, so that in a true and well ordered church, the reprobate are called by the name of God; but the elect alone are truly called by his name…We hence see that the name of God is only truly and really called on those, who not only boast that they are the faithful, but who have been also regenerated by the Holy Spirit.”
I do know Berkhof says this in regard to the unregenerate on page 289
d. They are in the covenant also as far as the common covenant blessings are concerned. Though they do not experience the regenerating influence of the Holy Spirit, yet they are subject to certain special operations and influences of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit strives with them in a special manner, convicts them of sin, enlightens them in a measure, and enriches them with the b’essings of common grace, Gen. 6:3 ; Matt. 13:18-22; Heb. 6:4-6.
Someone with theological training should answer your question though 🙂
k e n
Pingback: Theology Online: Theology, Back to the Basics » The Covenant of Grace