The Real Meaning Behind “We Must Preach the Gospel to Ourselves Everyday”
In his commentary on the Catholic Epistles, volume 45, Calvin states the following:
“Secondly, this passage shows that the gratuitous pardon of sins is given us not only once, but that it is a benefit perpetually residing in the Church, and daily offered to the faithful. For the Apostle here addresses the faithful; as doubtless no man has ever been, nor ever will be, who can otherwise please God, since all are guilty before him; for however strong a desire there may be in us of acting rightly, we always go haltingly to God. Yet what is half done obtains no approval with God. In the meantime, by new sins we continually separate ourselves, as far as we can, from the grace of God. Thus it is, that all the saints have need of the daily forgiveness of sins; for this alone keeps us in the family of God” (John Calvin: Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles. The Calvin Translation Society 1855. Editor: John Owen, p. 165 ¶4).
Calvin is clearly stating here that sin in sanctification separates us from grace:
by new sins we continually separate ourselves, as far as we can, from the grace of God.
Hence, there is no distinction between sonship and justification. Sin can only separate us from grace, and not intimacy with the Father. Sonship, which should be under the auspices of sanctification, is fused with justification. Then the shocker:
Thus it is, that all the saints have need of the daily forgiveness of sins; for this alone keeps us in the family of God.
Notice also that this “gratuitous pardon” is “offered” daily. So in the same way we are initially offered salvation for forgiveness of sins, we have to continually accept this daily offer of forgiveness. And moreover, that “keeps us” in the family of God. “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day.” Sound familiar?
Now we know why.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Reblogged this on Clearcreek Chapel Watch.
LikeLike
[…] The Real Meaning Behind “We Must Preach the Gospel to Ourselves Everyday”. […]
LikeLike
Paul,
Can you cite any Calvinist who follows Calvin in this interpretation of 1 Jn. 1? Most Calvinists I have read understand it in reference to broken fellowship with God.
LikeLike
Anon,
Hybrid Calvinists or Authentic Calvinist? HC’s will see this as a sanctification verse. AC see ALL Scripture in a justification context.
LikeLike
I’m not sure what you mean by “hybrid Calvinist.” Can you give me an example of an AC who understands the verse as Calvin did?
LikeLike
Anon,
Authentic Calvinism is the Reformation gospel based on the theology of Augustine, Gregory, Luther, and Calvin. And they all four were pretty consistent. The reason they were so consistent is because they held to the basic worldview of Plato. Reformed doctrine is fundamentally based on Platonist metaphysics. They simply made Plato’s objective forms Jesus Christ. We are Plato’s subjective objects. Hence, “The centrality of the objective gospel outside of us” and “The subjective power of the objective gospel.” Those are terms popular among New Calvinists and the ideology is that of the original core four. Though Calvin criticized Plato on some residual issues, he quotes Augustine, on average, on every 2.5 pages of the Calvin Institutes. Augustine all but said the Bible was worthless without Plato and that he was a pre-Christian Christian. The Reformers interpreted ALL OF REALITY via Christocentric eisegesis. Luther made this clear in his Heidelberg Disputation.
The normative way to interpret reality is grammatically, or through the general acceptance of the meaning of words. This is why the interpretation of Scripture by the Reformers often defys the plain sense of the text. But as the Reformation progressed, grammatical epistemology mixed with Christocentric metaphysics and produced “Hybrid Calvinists.” I sometimes call them, “sanctified Calvinists.” They hold to a more common soteriology but often keep the original Reformed eschatology. The first confrontation between HC and AC that I have been able to find is the antinomian controversy that erupted in the American colonies. Anne Hutchinson was an AC and follower of John Cotton, also an AC. Cotton knew what was going on, but stayed aloof and threw Hutchinson under the bus. The other Puritans were HC and accused her of being antinomain. Basically, she called out the colonial clergy for not holding to AC and she was spot on. Again, Cotton played possum.
AC eventually dies out because of its other-worldly metaphysics. It makes a comeback from time to time, but eventually dies out again. That is until the Australian Forum came along in 1970. They packaged AC in a way that could be understood and systematized. This is probably the first time in history that this had been done. The doctrine needed this because its “NOT Catholicism” appeal could not carry the long term. The next HC/AC war occurred in Presby circles between Sonship Theology advocates and the Presby clergy, most notably Jay Adams, Vanhoorn, and Terri Johnson. The Forum gave birth to what we now know as New Calvinism.
LikeLike
….so, in regard to your 1John question, AC are going to interpret all Scripture from a justification perspective, their lying not withstanding. HC are going to make a distinction between justification and sanctification in their interpretation.
LikeLike
In which group would you place John MacArthur, for example?
LikeLike
MacArthur? He is utterly confused. It depends on where he now is with his eschatology. I would need to know that to answer the question.
LikeLike
So you would consider people like John Gill, Matthew Henry, James Boice hybrid Calvinists?
LikeLike
Anon,
If they have a soteriology of monergistic Justification and synergistic sanctification, and reject the fusing of justification and sanctification together, they are Hybrid. Their eschatology may very, but Calvin’s eschatology matched his soteriology. He was consistent.
LikeLike
Last I heard Mac was a Dispensationalist
LikeLike
I guess from your statement above, you consider Piper a Hybrid?
LikeLike
Anon,
Piper is an AC on steroids in regard to his soteriology. However, I think Auggie would even be alarmed at his Platonist leanings. Soteriology is really the determining factor here–eschatology can vary. I may have somewhat misspoke earlier in regard to Mac. Him trying to stuff this theology into what he was is just plain off-the-charts weirdness.
LikeLike
Thanks for your answers.
LikeLike
[…] The Real Meaning Behind “We Must Preach the Gospel to Ourselves Everyday”. […]
LikeLike