Questions on Institutes II.12.1

[Davidius]

Hey all,

Just a couple questions:

1) In II.12.1 Calvin says "it deeply concerned us, that he who was to be our Mediator be very God and very man. If the necessity were inquired into, it was not what is commonly termed simple or absolute, but flowed from the divine decree on which the salvation of man depended."

I understand that the coming of Christ as a man flowed from the divine decree, but what does he mean when he says that the necessity of this is not "simple or absolute"? In what way are the two incompatible?

2) In the middle of the section, he says, "had man remained free from all taint, he was of too humble a condition to penetrate to God without a Mediator."

Was Christ the mediator between God and man before the Fall? or to what is Calvin referring here when he says that man would need a mediator even without sin?

 

[VictorBravo]

Hey all,

Just a couple questions:

1) In II.12.1 Calvin says "it deeply concerned us, that he who was to be our Mediator be very God and very man. If the necessity were inquired into, it was not what is commonly termed simple or absolute, but flowed from the divine decree on which the salvation of man depended."

I understand that the coming of Christ as a man flowed from the divine decree, but what does he mean when he says that the necessity of this is not "simple or absolute"? In what way are the two incompatible?

2) In the middle of the section, he says, "had man remained free from all taint, he was of too humble a condition to penetrate to God without a Mediator."

Was Christ the mediator between God and man before the Fall? or to what is Calvin referring here when he says that man would need a mediator even without sin?

Just a quick note: I think the idea of simple or absolute refers to the essence of God, and Calvin is saying that nothing is a necessity for Him. God's simple and absolute essence is not something that is subject to any need or outside requirement.

In other words, the need for a mediator did not determine how God would provide one. Man needed a mediator to be able to present himself to God, but God was not required to do it in a particular way.

Or, perhaps another way of putting it: it was our condition that necessitated such a mediator, not a requirement in God's essence. So the fact that we have a God-Man mediator is a result of God's will, not his nature.

As for the second question, I think that is what Calvin is saying.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Davidus:

I think Calvin is saying that God did not decree that the Mediator be both true God and true man out of necessity, and that His decrees originated without any necessary compunction being laid upon Him.

I believe that it was the Second Person of the Trinity who conferred with Adam in the Garden of Eden. In other passages of Scripture even the perfect Angels had to cover their faces and feet in the presence of God. Man, being a creature himself but made in the image of God, would also need some kind of mediation between God and himself as well.

I think that because he was made in the image of God, and, that he was without sin before the Fall. that Adam could converse with the Second Person of the Trinity just as easily as Peter, or John, or any of the disciples did with Jesus before the Cross.

Just a few simple, but not necessary! thoughts.

-CH

 

[VictorBravo]

Davidus:

I think Calvin is saying that God did not decree that the Mediator be both true God and true man out of necessity, and that His decrees originated without any necessary compunction being laid upon Him.

I believe that it was the Second Person of the Trinity who conferred with Adam in the Garden of Eden. In other passages of Scripture even the perfect Angels had to cover their faces and feet in the presence of God. Man, being a creature himself but made in the image of God, would also need some kind of mediation between God and himself as well.

I think that because he was made in the image of God, and, that he was without sin before the Fall. that Adam could converse with the Second Person of the Trinity just as easily as Peter, or John, or and of the disciples did with Jesus before the Cross.

Just a few simple, but not necessary! thoughts.

-CH

Robert, it seems I keep finding myself agreeing with you.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hey all,

Just a couple questions:

1) In II.12.1 Calvin says "it deeply concerned us, that he who was to be our Mediator be very God and very man. If the necessity were inquired into, it was not what is commonly termed simple or absolute, but flowed from the divine decree on which the salvation of man depended."

I understand that the coming of Christ as a man flowed from the divine decree, but what does he mean when he says that the necessity of this is not "simple or absolute"? In what way are the two incompatible?

2) In the middle of the section, he says, "had man remained free from all taint, he was of too humble a condition to penetrate to God without a Mediator."

Was Christ the mediator between God and man before the Fall? or to what is Calvin referring here when he says that man would need a mediator even without sin?

Just a quick note: I think the idea of simple or absolute refers to the essence of God, and Calvin is saying that nothing is a necessity for Him. God's simple and absolute essence is not something that is subject to any need or outside requirement.

In other words, the need for a mediator did not determine how God would provide one. Man needed a mediator to be able to present himself to God, but God was not required to do it in a particular way.

Or, perhaps another way of putting it: it was our condition that necessitated such a mediator, not a requirement in God's essence. So the fact that we have a God-Man mediator is a result of God's will, not his nature.

As for the second question, I think that is what Calvin is saying.

Great minds think alike! - you got the post before me!



-CH

 

[Davidius]

Thanks, guys. A couple follow up questions based on your responses:

Calvin goes on in the section to discuss how mediation could not have been accomplished by a man or by an angel. This seems to me to impose some kind of "natural necessity" on the nature of mediation, although I assume it's not the same kind of necessity mentioned by Calvin above. How does this need (necessity?) for someone both God and man to act as mediator square with the fact that God was not constrained by natural necessity in sending the second person of the Trinity? I ask this particularly because of your comment, Vic, that "the need for a mediator did not determine how God would provide one." My original thought was that natural necessity did not deterine whether God would provide one (since God was not under obligation to save anyone), while it seems that there is some natural necessity in the form of the mediator. Thoughts?

Also, can we say that Christ existed in bodily form from eternity past? I have often wondered whether it was, indeed, Christ with whom Adam spoke in the garden, Abraham on the mount, Joshua, etc.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi Davidus:

I think you ask some good questions. There must be some precautions taken when we talk about the Decrees of God. First, that God is eternal, and He does not think in temporal/linear terms (even though He created them). Thus, there is only one decree that God has made. When that Decree interacts with time it "breaks up" (if I can use that term) into many decrees. I believe that one Decree which God spoke that caused all things to come into being is:

"I will be glorified in all things" - Lev 10:3; Is 44:33; Is 49:3; Is 60:21; Is 61:3; Eze 28:22; 39:13; Mt 15:31; Mr 2:12; Lk 4:15; 5:26; Acts 4:21; Rom 1:21; Gal 1:24; 2 Th 1:12; 1 Pt 3:11.

From this one decree all the other decrees follow when we consider this one decree in its temporal/linear form. When you say that a "natural" necessity - if you are considering it from the "nature" of God - that God has imposed upon Himself a necessity, then I think you are speaking correctly. But this necessity is not "outside" of Himself nor was it imposed upon Him from outside sources.

You can say that when God "decided" to save mankind that He imposed upon Himself a necessity to save man based upon His Justice, Mercy, Wisdom, Power, and Knowledge. We say that the "need" for a Mediator was provided by God in the Person of Jesus Christ because that was the "best" and most glorifying way for the salvation of mankind. However, it may not have been the "only" way of salvation.

In the Garden Christ asked God, "If it is possible to take this cup from me." If there was a better and more glorifying way to save mankind, then I believe that God would have taken that route. However, there is not. And it was only through the substitutionary Atonement of Jesus Christ on the Cross that sinful man will be saved, and God receive the proper Glory due to Him.

As far as Theophanies of Christ are concerned: The Second Person of the Trinity did not appear in human physical bodily form until the Incarnation. However, since He has been resurrected from the Dead, and is now in Eternity (where past, present, and future are all one) I do not see the impossibility of Him "going back in the past" and revealing Himself, for example, in the burning firey furnace found in Daniel. That is simply my own humble opinion, and if some disagree, or, if this is some ancient heresy that I never heard of before, then I will freely let it go.

Hope this helps,

-CalvinandHodge

 

[Davidius]

As far as Theophanies of Christ are concerned: The Second Person of the Trinity did not appear in human physical bodily form until the Incarnation. However, since He has been resurrected from the Dead, and is now in Eternity (where past, present, and future are all one) I do not see the impossibility of Him "going back in the past" and revealing Himself, for example, in the burning firey furnace found in Daniel. That is simply my own humble opinion, and if some disagree, or, if this is some ancient heresy that I never heard of before, then I will freely let it go.

Hope this helps,

-CalvinandHodge

Okay, well I'll let others more knowledgeable than I comment on the orthodoxy of your last statement. It's certainly something interesting to think about in the meantime!

So are you saying that we can only say that the sending of Christ was necessary in that it was the "best and most glorifying way," contingent upon God's all-encompassing decree to be glorified on all things, and not that it was literally the only way by which salvation could have been accomplished? I don't think that to say the latter would be imposing any more of a necessity on God than to say that God cannot create a rock so big he can't lift it. God's omnipotence does not imply that he can accomplish anything to which we can attach words, right? Perhaps the idea of salvation other than through the mediation of the God-man is a non-starter just like the rock? This doesn't seem to me to imply some kind of force outside of God to which he is accountable and for which our metaphysics would then have to account.

 

[VictorBravo]

So are you saying that we can only say that the sending of Christ was necessary in that it was the "best and most glorifying way," contingent upon God's all-encompassing decree to be glorified on all things, and not that it was literally the only way by which salvation could have been accomplished? I don't think that to say the latter would be imposing any more of a necessity on God than to say that God cannot create a rock so big he can't lift it. God's omnipotence does not imply that he can accomplish anything to which we can attach words, right? Perhaps the idea of salvation other than through the mediation of the God-man is a non-starter just like the rock? This doesn't seem to me to imply some kind of force outside of God to which he is accountable and for which our metaphysics would then have to account.

I think Calvin is even more circumspect. His position is that Christ was sent to be a mediator simply because it was from God's decree. He is loath to go beyond Scripture to entertain speculations, often calling them "unlawful". As he said in Section 5 of the same chapter:

Wherefore, seeing it is as Paul declares it to be, “a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1Ti_1:15), in it I willingly acquiesce. And since the same Apostle elsewhere declares that the grace which is now manifested by the Gospel “was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began” (2Ti_1:9), I am resolved to adhere to it firmly even to the end. This moderation is unjustly vituperated by Osiander, who has unhappily, in the present day, again agitated this question, which a few had formerly raised. He brings a charge of overweening confidence against those who deny that the Son of God would have appeared in the flesh if Adam had not fallen, because this notion is not repudiated by any passage of Scripture. As if Paul did not lay a curb on perverse curiosity when after speaking of the redemption obtained by Christ, he bids us “avoid foolish questions” (Tit_3:9).

Even though this section is directed more towards those who insist, one way or another, that Christ had to come in human form, regardless of whether Adam had fallen or not, I think he'd say the same thing regarding the particular method of salvation too. I do like his policy of not trying to figure out hypotheticals.

 

[Davidius]

This question is not one of mere speculation, though, and in the section to which I am referring Calvin makes statements about forms of mediation that would and would not have been possible. It's not a "foolish question" to ask whether bulls and goats could have atoned for us if God had decreed such. Hebrews seems to make it clear that these types were merely symbols, not efficacious. The mediator could not have been merely God, because of X reason. He could not have been merely man, for Y reason. It could not have been an angel or animal for Y reason. Calvin readily admits these things in II.21.1. As soon as we admit this, aren't we implying some sort of necessity? It was not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to make atonement for our sins, hence it seems to me, again, as though the decree of God here is particularly concerned with whether the God-man will be sent, and that some kind of necessity does play into the uniqueness of the God-man's ability to atone for us. Or would you say that God could have decreed that we be saved by the blood of bulls and goats? My argument above was that to say so does not "limit" God anymore than the question about the rock.

What do you think about the appearance of Christ in the OT? Are there other threads about this?

 

[VictorBravo]

This question is not one of mere speculation, though, and in the section to which I am referring Calvin makes statements about forms of mediation that would and would not have been possible. It's not a "foolish question" to ask whether bulls and goats could have atoned for us if God had decreed such. Hebrews seems to make it clear that these types were merely symbols, not efficacious. The mediator could not have been merely God, because of X reason. He could not have been merely man, for Y reason. It could not have been an angel or animal for Y reason. Calvin readily admits these things in II.21.1. As soon as we admit this, aren't we implying some sort of necessity? It was not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to make atonement for our sins, hence it seems to me, again, as though the decree of God here is particularly concerned with whether the God-man will be sent, and that some kind of necessity does play into the uniqueness of the God-man's ability to atone for us. Or would you say that God could have decreed that we be saved by the blood of bulls and goats? My argument above was that to say so does not "limit" God anymore than the question about the rock.

What do you think about the appearance of Christ in the OT? Are there other threads about this?

Just to be clear, I don't think your questions are foolish ones.

What I was trying to say is that whenever Calvin states a position, he draws it from scripture and doesn't want to go farther. Bulls and goats aren't enough, because it says so in scripture. If it didn't say so in scripture, the door would be open to the question. And so forth.

I did a search on "theophany" for past posts on the board, I didn't find very much. But I found this nugget from Bruce that touches on the issue of necessity:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/why-can-t-god-just-forgive-me-10933/#post144150

 

[Davidius]

This question is not one of mere speculation, though, and in the section to which I am referring Calvin makes statements about forms of mediation that would and would not have been possible. It's not a "foolish question" to ask whether bulls and goats could have atoned for us if God had decreed such. Hebrews seems to make it clear that these types were merely symbols, not efficacious. The mediator could not have been merely God, because of X reason. He could not have been merely man, for Y reason. It could not have been an angel or animal for Y reason. Calvin readily admits these things in II.21.1. As soon as we admit this, aren't we implying some sort of necessity? It was not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to make atonement for our sins, hence it seems to me, again, as though the decree of God here is particularly concerned with whether the God-man will be sent, and that some kind of necessity does play into the uniqueness of the God-man's ability to atone for us. Or would you say that God could have decreed that we be saved by the blood of bulls and goats? My argument above was that to say so does not "limit" God anymore than the question about the rock.

What do you think about the appearance of Christ in the OT? Are there other threads about this?

Just to be clear, I don't think your questions are foolish ones.

What I was trying to say is that whenever Calvin states a position, he draws it from scripture and doesn't want to go farther. Bulls and goats aren't enough, because it says so in scripture. If it didn't say so in scripture, the door would be open to the question. And so forth.

I did a search on "theophany" for past posts on the board, I didn't find very much. But I found this nugget from Bruce that touches on the issue of necessity:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/why-can-t-god-just-forgive-me-10933/#post144150

The passage by Bruce is great. It's that sort of thing that I'm talking about. God is "constrained" to be just because of his nature. He "can't" forgive sin without some kind of atonement. It is "necessary" that satisfaction be made. From this it does not seem to me a big leap to apply the same principle to the nature of the Mediator. God doesn't have to forgive sinners, but if he chooses to, Christ must necessarily be the Mediator.

 

[MW]

The passage by Bruce is great. It's that sort of thing that I'm talking about. God is "constrained" to be just because of his nature. He "can't" forgive sin without some kind of atonement. It is "necessary" that satisfaction be made. From this it does not seem to me a big leap to apply the same principle to the nature of the Mediator. God doesn't have to forgive sinners, but if he chooses to, Christ must necessarily be the Mediator.

This kind of thinking just doesn't fit in the context of Calvin and the earlier reformed tradition. First, the nature of justice is determined by God's decree; God is not bound by the nature of justice. Secondly, the Mediator is the one by whom and for whom all things are made. To suppose His mediatorial work is a part of some kind of contingency plan within the decree is most unbecoming. It is more appropriate to speak of sin being ordained for the cause of manifesting the Mediator. Adam's disobedience was a figure of Christ's future obedience. Blessings!

 

[Davidius]

The passage by Bruce is great. It's that sort of thing that I'm talking about. God is "constrained" to be just because of his nature. He "can't" forgive sin without some kind of atonement. It is "necessary" that satisfaction be made. From this it does not seem to me a big leap to apply the same principle to the nature of the Mediator. God doesn't have to forgive sinners, but if he chooses to, Christ must necessarily be the Mediator.

This kind of thinking just doesn't fit in the context of Calvin and the earlier reformed tradition. First, the nature of justice is determined by God's decree; God is not bound by the nature of justice. Secondly, the Mediator is the one by whom and for whom all things are made. To suppose His mediatorial work is a part of some kind of contingency plan within the decree is most unbecoming. It is more appropriate to speak of sin being ordained for the cause of manifesting the Mediator. Adam's disobedience was a figure of Christ's future obedience. Blessings!

Why does Calvin talk about the inability of our savior to be man or angel, then? Couldn't he have just said "Christ, for whom all things were made, is prior to the need for a redeemer in God's decree, making irrelevant the question what kind of redeemer would be fitting"?

Does this have anything to do with Supralapsarianism?

 

[MW]

Why does Calvin talk about the inability of our savior to be man or angel, then? Couldn't he have just said "Christ, for whom all things were made, is prior to the need for a redeemer in God's decree, making irrelevant the question what kind of redeemer would be fitting"?

Does this have anything to do with Supralapsarianism?

Calvin has already cleared the ground by making it a necessity which exists by virtue of the decree.

I suppose it does have to do with supralapsarianism in the sense that supralapsarianism provides the best account of an unconditioned and free decree, for which Calvin was unflinching. Other than that I wouldn't press a decretal order on Calvin.