Covenantal Objectivist themes in Calvin

You might say there is a kind of covenantal objectivism or even ex opera operato in Calvin. Those who eat and drink the bread and wine unbelievingly still receive a sacrament visibly to their judgement, though they do not receive the very body and blood of Christ to their comfort and growth in grace. Just by being done the sacraments always do something both to believer, covenant breaker and unbeliever.

This sort of thing:

“It is long since I accurately explained what Augustine means by a twofold (p280) eating, namely that while some receive the virtue of the sacrament, others receive only a visible sacrament; that it is one thing to take inwardly, another outwardly; one thing to eat with the heart, another to bite with the teeth. And he finally concludes that the sacrament which is placed on the Lord’s table is taken by some unto destruction and by others unto life, but the reality of which the Supper is the sign gives life to all who partake of it. In another passage, treating in express terms of this question, he distinctly refutes those who imagined that the wicked eat the body of Christ not only sacramentally but in reality. To show our entire agreement with this holy writer, we say that those who are united by faith, so as to be his members, eat his body truly or in reality, whereas those who receive nothing but the visible sign eat only sacramentally. He often expressed himself in the very same way. (De civit. Dei, 21, ch 25; Contra Faust. Bk 13, ch 13; see also in Joann. Ev. Tract. 25-27)” (LCC Calvin’s Theological Treatises, ‘The clear explanation … concerning the true partaking of … the Holy Supper’, p281)

There is a sense in which Judas ate the bread of the Lord against the Lord whereas the other apostles ate the bread of the Lord (Augustine, in Joann. Ev. Tract 59)

I was also interested to see that when Calvin speaks Heshusius’ argument about the Spirit dwelling in Saul he distinguishes between “the sanctification proper only to the elect and the children of God, and the general power which is proper even to the reprobate.” (p285)