In explaining the name “Jesus,” Calvin ( Institutes 2.16.1) makes this curious statement: “The office of Redeemer was laid upon him that he might be our Savior. Still, our redemption would be imperfect if he did not lead us ever onward to the final goal of salvation.”
That distinction of “redemption” ( redemptio ) and “salvation” ( salutis ) is odd in itself. Redemption refers to the payment that Jesus made for our sins, while salvation refers to something that is yet future ( progressus ad ultimam ). Calvin might be paraphrased as saying, “We are redeemed but not yet saved” or “Our redemption is imperfect ( mutila ) until we achieve salvation.” Perfect redemption is still to come; it lies ahead in the state that Calvin describes as “salvation.”
Between redemption and salvation, it seems, things can go awry:
“the moment we turn away even slightly from him, our salvation, which rests firmly in him, gradually vanishes.” (Latin: Itaque simulac vel minimum ab eo deflectimus, sensim evanescit salus, quae solida in eo residet .) Salvation resides in Christ. If we have him, we have salvation. But if we turn, salvation recedes, vanishes, slips through our fingers. If we want grace, and eventual salvation, we must “repose” in Him ( in eo acquiescunt ).
This might be taken in this way: Redemption is imperfect until final salvation is achieved; but it will certainly be achieved for those who are redeemed. The Redeemer is Jesus, Savior, and that means He will perfect our imperfect redemption by bringing us to salvation. If one could possibly turn away from Jesus the Savior, then salvation would vanish. But God has ensured that this won’t happen.
It might mean something riskier: God bought or redeemed some people who won’t make it all the way to salvation. They will glimpse salvation, but it will vanish as they turn from Jesus – because it’s impossible to get to salvation without clinging to the Savior. The exodus provides an analogy: Some of those redeemed from Egypt don’t make it all the way to salus of the promise land.
Calvin says each of these in different places, I think, and the ambiguity has been the source of ongoing reflection and debate among the Reformed, not all of it entirely peaceable.
Dear Reader,
Can I be direct with you?
War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.
First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.
But we can’t do it without readers like you.
Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.
Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.
Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…
