Passing Thoughts on the Calvin Institutes
Throughout the Calvin Institutes, one asks, “Is he talking about justification or sanctification?” Yes. Like the “New Calvinists” of this day, Calvin used ambiguous pronouns that could refer to mankind in general or Christians. And I think deliberately so. This is a communication technique that New Calvinists learned from Calvin himself. It is a way to say the two are the same thing without stating it plainly.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Paul – I would appreciate it if you gave examples of Calvin doing this. I’m not necessarily saying that he doesn’t; it’s just that I haven’t seen it.
In the following, from 3.11.6, Calvin criticizes a theologian, Andreas Osiander, for doing just this: Confusing justification and sanctification, saying they are the same.
“To prove the first point—viz. that God justifies not only by pardoning but by regenerating, he asks, whether he leaves those whom he justifies as they were by nature, making no change upon their vices? The answer is very easy: as Christ cannot be divided into parts, so the two things, justification and sanctification, which we perceive to be united together in him, are inseparable. Whomsoever, therefore, God receives into his favor, he presents with the Spirit of adoption, whose agency forms them anew into his image. But if the brightness of the sun cannot be separated from its heat, are we therefore to say, that the earth is warmed by light and illumined by heat? Nothing can be more apposite to the matter in hand than this simile. The sun by its heat quickens and fertilizes the earth; by its rays enlightens and illumines it. Here is a mutual and undivided connection, and yet reason itself prohibits us from transferring the peculiar properties of the one to the other. In the confusion of a twofold grace, which Osiander obtrudes upon us, there is a similar absurdity. Because those whom God freely regards as righteous, he in fact renews to the cultivation of righteousness, Osiander confounds that free acceptance with this gift of regeneration, and contends that they are one and the same. But Scriptures while combining both, classes them separately, that it may the better display the manifold grace of God. Nor is Paul’s statement superfluous, that Christ is made unto us “righteousness and sanctification,” (1 Cor. 1:30). And whenever he argues from the salvation procured for us, from the paternal love of God and the grace of Christ, that we are called to purity and holiness, he plainly intimates, that to be justified is something else than to be made new creatures.”
3.16 touches on this when he takes on his critics, who say that the doctrine of justification does away with good works. In answering in the negative, he distinguishes between justification and sanctification. For example, in 3.16.1: “This alone is of importance: having admitted that faith and good works must cleave together, we still lodge justification in faith, not in works.” Also, in the same section: “Thus it is clear how true it is that we are justified not without works yet not through works, since in our sharing in Christ, which justifies us, sanctification is just as much included as righteousness.” So, though we’re given both at the same time, they are not the same.
Whether or not Calvin muddies this by using ambiguous pronouns, at least we see that his intent is to distinguish justification and sanctification.
LikeLike
Jeff, Ever since your first comment on this, I have been working on a post. It is sitting on four pages, but will probably be at least 7. Might be done today. paul
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Thanks. Looking forward to it.
LikeLike