Notice the context and the question Calvin is answering. He is arguing against the idea that justification is based not only on imputed righteousness but also on infused righteousness. Then, he answers a supposed objection i.e., that he is saying that justification stands alone and is not accompanied by sanctification. This he denies in the statement you quoted. Please consider the fuller quotation:
” For, in the whole of this discussion, the noun righteousness and the verb to justify, are extended by Osiander to two parts; to be justified being not only to be reconciled to God by a free pardon, but also to be made just; and righteousness being not a free imputation, but the holiness and integrity which the divine essence dwelling in us inspires. And he vehemently asserts (see sec. 8) that Christ is himself our righteousness, not in so far as he, by expiating sins, appeased the Father, but because he is the eternal God and life. 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. “
paulspassingthoughts said, on July 17, 2013 at 2:19 PM
Anon,
Right, Calvin is arguing from the prism of a linear gospel. So what is your point? He claims Osiander argued from the same perspective, so they are both wrong. Calvin protests because infused grace finishes the golden chain, while he believes that only the works of Christ can finish the golden chain, but there is no golden chain with sanctification between justification and glorification. Sanctification is completely separated and made possible by justification, but it is not a part of justification. Sanctification doesn’t not finish justification. All Reformed arguments come from own prism as if it is the only reality. Your argument seems to be the same old Reformed metaphysical sleight of hand by inserting “basis” and “infused” within the justification prism that includes sanctification. If your intent is to confuse me with that, don’t waste your time.
In the same context you have quoted, Calvin wrote, “Thus it is said, in Paul’s discourse in the Acts, “Through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins; and by him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses,” (Acts 13:38, 39). You see that after remission of sins justification is set down by way of explanation; you see plainly that it is used for acquittal; you see how it cannot be obtained by the works of the law; you see that it is entirely through the interposition of Christ; you see that it is obtained by faith; you see, in fine, that satisfaction intervenes, since it is said that we are justified from our sins by Christ. Thus when the publican is said to have gone down to his house “justified,” (Luke 18:14), it cannot be held that he obtained this justification by any merit of works. All that is said is, that after obtaining the pardon of sins he was regarded in the sight of God as righteous. He was justified, therefore, not by any approval of works, but by gratuitous acquittal on the part of God. Hence Ambrose elegantly terms confession of sins “legal justification,” (Ambrose on Psalm 118 Serm. 10). (Book 3. Chapter 11, #3).
It should be clear to anyone he was not arguing that sanctification finishes anything. “He was justified, therefore, not by any approval of works, but by gratuitous acquittal on the part of God.” How can you in any way construe that to be “progressive justification?” It was progressive justification he was arguing against.
paulspassingthoughts said, on July 18, 2013 at 10:16 AM
Anon,
Do you think I am an idiot? Nothing you say here disavows the fact that Calvin speaks from the viewpoint that justification and sanctification are the same thing. You are wasting my time. Because he saw them as the same, all of salvation must be of Christ because He is the only member of the Trinity that lived on earth as a man and could supposedly keep the law for us and the imputation thereof to our sanctification. Hence, this statement that is absolutely NOT true:”you see that it is entirely through the interposition of Christ.” Salvation is not “entirely” by Christ. Salvation is Trinitarian. The Father elected, the Son died, and the Holy Spirit raised us with Christ. This aberration of the Trinity is on the long list of Calvin’s heresy.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Notice the context and the question Calvin is answering. He is arguing against the idea that justification is based not only on imputed righteousness but also on infused righteousness. Then, he answers a supposed objection i.e., that he is saying that justification stands alone and is not accompanied by sanctification. This he denies in the statement you quoted. Please consider the fuller quotation:
” For, in the whole of this discussion, the noun righteousness and the verb to justify, are extended by Osiander to two parts; to be justified being not only to be reconciled to God by a free pardon, but also to be made just; and righteousness being not a free imputation, but the holiness and integrity which the divine essence dwelling in us inspires. And he vehemently asserts (see sec. 8) that Christ is himself our righteousness, not in so far as he, by expiating sins, appeased the Father, but because he is the eternal God and life. 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. “
LikeLike
Anon,
Right, Calvin is arguing from the prism of a linear gospel. So what is your point? He claims Osiander argued from the same perspective, so they are both wrong. Calvin protests because infused grace finishes the golden chain, while he believes that only the works of Christ can finish the golden chain, but there is no golden chain with sanctification between justification and glorification. Sanctification is completely separated and made possible by justification, but it is not a part of justification. Sanctification doesn’t not finish justification. All Reformed arguments come from own prism as if it is the only reality. Your argument seems to be the same old Reformed metaphysical sleight of hand by inserting “basis” and “infused” within the justification prism that includes sanctification. If your intent is to confuse me with that, don’t waste your time.
LikeLike
In the same context you have quoted, Calvin wrote, “Thus it is said, in Paul’s discourse in the Acts, “Through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins; and by him all that believe are justified from all things from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses,” (Acts 13:38, 39). You see that after remission of sins justification is set down by way of explanation; you see plainly that it is used for acquittal; you see how it cannot be obtained by the works of the law; you see that it is entirely through the interposition of Christ; you see that it is obtained by faith; you see, in fine, that satisfaction intervenes, since it is said that we are justified from our sins by Christ. Thus when the publican is said to have gone down to his house “justified,” (Luke 18:14), it cannot be held that he obtained this justification by any merit of works. All that is said is, that after obtaining the pardon of sins he was regarded in the sight of God as righteous. He was justified, therefore, not by any approval of works, but by gratuitous acquittal on the part of God. Hence Ambrose elegantly terms confession of sins “legal justification,” (Ambrose on Psalm 118 Serm. 10). (Book 3. Chapter 11, #3).
It should be clear to anyone he was not arguing that sanctification finishes anything. “He was justified, therefore, not by any approval of works, but by gratuitous acquittal on the part of God.” How can you in any way construe that to be “progressive justification?” It was progressive justification he was arguing against.
LikeLike
Anon,
Do you think I am an idiot? Nothing you say here disavows the fact that Calvin speaks from the viewpoint that justification and sanctification are the same thing. You are wasting my time. Because he saw them as the same, all of salvation must be of Christ because He is the only member of the Trinity that lived on earth as a man and could supposedly keep the law for us and the imputation thereof to our sanctification. Hence, this statement that is absolutely NOT true:”you see that it is entirely through the interposition of Christ.” Salvation is not “entirely” by Christ. Salvation is Trinitarian. The Father elected, the Son died, and the Holy Spirit raised us with Christ. This aberration of the Trinity is on the long list of Calvin’s heresy.
LikeLike
Last comment. Calvin believed and Calvinists believe everything you have written here about the work of the Trinity in the salvation of sinners.
LikeLike
LOL! Whatever.
LikeLike
….and this is not vainly speaking: thank God it is your last comment here.
LikeLike