DID JOHN CALVIN TEACH THAT GOD IS THE AUTHOR OF EVIL?
(This page
is a work in progress, but with sufficient material to post immediately. There
is quite a bit of material but is well worth the effort to read it all. It
strikes the Scriptural balance between the sovereignty of God and the
responsibility of the sinner for his actions.)
THE STORY
SUMMARISED FROM THE FULL QUOTES GIVEN BELOW:
The clear
answer to the above question is "No - he certainly did not." As
seen in the quotes given below, he forthrightly denied it to be the case: "I deny that God is the author of evil"
(Comment/Acts 2:23) Calvin identified
two "absurdities" in his comments on James 1:13
including the idea that God is the author of sin, which he called a "vain
evasion." Calvin further claimed that "every evil
proceeds from no other fountain other than the wicked lusts of man" and
that it is Satan who allures men to sin. (ibid) The whole of Calvin's
comment on James 1:13 is rich in clear quotes on this matter, which cannot be
misunderstood in any way, concluding with the words: "But
God does not desire what is evil: he is not, therefore, the author of doing
evil in us."
We
reproduce, in full, Calvin's section from the Institutes (2:4:2) where he takes
on the scenario from Job and shows how the three separate players (God, Satan
and the Chaldeans) all had a totally different impute into the trouble
afflicted upon Job and shows how that only God could walk away without any
blame and why i.e. His purpose and manner differed greatly from
that of Satan and the Chaldeans. Calvin's comments on Isaiah 10:7 further
enlarge upon these things. Here he points out that the wicked are obliged to
take their orders from the revealed law of God and cannot complain if God uses
their self produced wickedness for His own holy ends. In his comments on
Genesis 8:22, Calvin points out that no man is compelled to sin by outside
force, but always does not voluntarily by his own wicked lusts. On
several occasions, Calvin pointed out that man is the author of his own
damnation - and so could claim: "Accordingly, we should
contemplate the evident cause of condemnation in the corrupt nature of humanity—which
is closer to us—rather than seek a hidden and utterly incomprehensible cause in
God’s predestination." (Institutes 3:23:8)
We also
reproduced in full Calvin's comments on Judas Iscariot and how the wicked (not
the innocent or the neutral) are sometimes bridled by God and used to
accomplish his holy will. Again, Calvin carefully explains how Judas can be and
is guilty. We follow this up with a partial quote from Calvin on Matthew 27:3
relating to how Judas refused the gospel offer made to him by God and so increased his
wickedness.
Calvin
also deals with how God hardening/blinding the reprobate does not indict God's
character. It is seen to be judicial - a response to light
refused. God does not begin the hardening. (Comments/Isaiah 6:10)
DID JOHN CALVIN TEACH THAT GOD IS THE AUTHOR OF EVIL?
If Calvin did so teach, then he is a false teacher and
blasphemer who should be exposed and shunned by all right thinking Christians.
If John Calvin did not so teach, then such a heinous charge
should never be laid against his name.
it is a fact that some - even professing the name of
Christ - have been very quick to lay this charge against Calvin. That some of
them are merely parroting others is no excuse. If I repeat a slander, then I am
as guilty (in a court of law) as the one who first begat the vicious rumour. It
is expected that I should check my facts first, ascertain the truthfulness of
any report and then repeat only what is verifiable and true. The rest ought to
be buried in the shameful oblivion where it belongs. Calvin is not the hardest
man to research. His commentaries and other writings are readily available on the Internet and
greatly aided by the Google search engine.
First of all, Calvin did make some statements which, if left
to stand alone and void either of context or other qualifying or explanatory
statements look bad. However, any one seizing them
without checking is either a knave (and so morally incapable of discussing the
matter at hand) or a fool (and therefore intellectually incapable of the
same.)
For example, in his "Institutes of the
Christian Religion" Calvin discussed how Providence extends to
all matters, both wicked and good. He used the illustration of a poor man in a
forest who unwisely wandered from his companions and was found murdered in a
thieves’ den. Calvin concludes: "His death was not only foreseen
by God’s eye, but also determined by his decree." (Institutes
1:16:9) Again, Calvin writes of the reprobate: "They have
been given over to this depravity because they have been raised up by the just
but inscrutable judgment of God to show forth his glory in their condemnation."
(Institutes 3:24:12)
(Other statements will be added as time permits.)
The best way to interpret Calvin's view on these
things is to read his great explanation in 2:4:2 which deals with (to quote
Calvin) the calamity inflicted by the Chaldeans upon the holy man,
Job." My edition of the Institutes (McNeill) puts a heading over
this paragraph as: "God, Satan and Man active in the same
event." Let us see what Calvin says. Calvin’s words are in black italics, while my comment on them
are in non italic red.
Calvin: Far different is the manner of God’s action in such matters. To
make this clearer to us, we may take as an example the calamity inflicted
by the Chaldeans upon the holy man Job, when they killed his shepherds and
in enmity ravaged his flock.
Me:
Notice right away how Calvin puts a clear and strongly worded distinction
between the manner in which God is involved in this matter and the others. It
is "far different."
Calvin: Now their wicked act is perfectly obvious; nor does Satan
do nothing in that work, for the history states that the whole thing stems
from him [Job 1:12].
Me:
Here Calvin identifies the wickedness of the Chaldeans and the activity of
Satan, clearly saying that the whole matter stemmed from him quoting Job 1:12
where Satan was given all that Job had in his own power (marg: hand)
Calvin: But Job himself recognizes the Lord’s work in it, saying that He
has taken away what had been seized through the Chaldeans [Job 1:21].
Me:
It is not merely Calvin's view that God had His part to play, but he
quotes Job's own words that God not only gave but God also took away what had
been unlawfully seized by the Chaldeans.
Calvin: How may we attribute this same work to God, to Satan, and
to man as author, without either excusing Satan as associated with God, or
making God the author of evil?
Me:
Here is the crux of the matter. Calvin sees it as totally undesirable that
Satan should either be excused or God made (and note the words) "the
author of evil."
Calvin: Easily, if we consider first the end, and then the manner,
of acting.
Me:
The use of the word easily is significant. As Calvin explains,
the difference that indicts Satan but exonerates God lies in the purpose of
the act and the way in which it is carried out.
Calvin: The Lord’s
purpose is to exercise the patience of His servant by calamity; Satan
endeavours to drive him to desperation; the Chaldeans strive to acquire
gain from another’s property contrary to law and right. So great is the
diversity of purpose that already strongly marks the deed.
Me:
God's purpose is holy. He wants the holy man of God to be even holier by the
event. Satan was driven by murderous spite seeking Job's apostasy and
destruction while the Chaldeans were driven by greed. There is no overlap (says
Calvin) but "so great" diversity which "already
strongly marks the deed."
Calvin: There
is no less difference in the manner. The Lord permits Satan to afflict
His servant; He hands the Chaldeans over to be impelled by Satan,
having chosen them as His ministers for this task. Satan with his poison
darts arouses the wicked minds of the Chaldeans to execute that evil deed.
Me:
Having sorted out the purpose, Calvin tackles the manner, confident that there
is no overlap: "no less difference." Calvin himself
uses the word permit which is usually used to denote the
allowing of something that is sinful. Calvin never quibbled with the use of the
word although he usually denied that it was 'mere permission,' as
if God had no purpose at all in the matter. My experience with anti Calvinists
is that they usually fail to pick up on this great distinction.
Calvin: They dash madly into injustice, and they render all their
members guilty and befoul them by the crime. Satan is properly said,
therefore, to act in the reprobate over whom he exercises his reign, that
is, the reign of wickedness.
Me:
Calvin here indicts the Chaldeans with the guilt of mad haste, injustice, and
being under the reign of Satan. The Chaldeans are the agents: They dash
- they render their members etc., Satan is indicted as having
a reign of wickedness.
Calvin: God is also said to act in His own manner, in that Satan himself,
since he is the instrument of God’s wrath, bends himself hither and
thither at His beck and command to execute His just judgments.
Me:
Calvin lays no indictment against God but states that God uses the
instrumentality of Satan (who is at His beck and command) to execute what
Calvin carefully calls God's "just judgements."
Calvin: I pass over here the universal activity of God whereby all
creatures, as they are sustained, thus derive the energy to do anything at
all. I am speaking only of that special action which appears in every
particular deed.
Me:
Calvin here carefully closes up a certain potential loophole in his
argument, lest we misunderstand what he is getting at. He is not speaking
in generalities but of particular deeds i.e. in this case the particular
incident of the Chaldeans being led of Satan to murder Job's children and
pillage his goods.
Calvin: Therefore we see no
inconsistency in assigning the same deed to God, Satan, and man; but the
distinction in purpose and manner causes God’s righteousness to shine
forth blameless there, while the wickedness of Satan and of man betrays
itself by its own disgrace.
Me: Calvin here sums up his position. The deed might be the same (i.e. the
killing of Job's children etc.,) but there were two entirely different
principles and manner of working in the same act. God's righteous
principles shone forth blameless (hence Job could use: "Blessed be
the name of the Lord" even in the same breath as "...the
LORD took away..." while, at the same time, the disgraceful
wickedness of Satan and men betrayed itself.
This is surely a defining paragraph from Calvin's own pen? It ought to
qualify every statement that Calvin made on this subject, even when he does not
go at such length into any explanation.
Let us take on another scenario i.e. the part which Judas Iscariot
played in the betrayal of Jesus Christ. In his comments on Matthew
26:24-25 "The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but
woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that
man if he had not been born. Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said,
Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said.) Calvin again does
not pull any punches. As above, Calvin’s words are in black italics, while my comment on them
are in non italic red.
Calvin: Matthew 26:24. The Son of man indeed goeth. Here Christ meets
an offense, which might otherwise have greatly shaken pious minds. For
what could be more unreasonable than that the Son of God should be
infamously betrayed by a disciple, and abandoned to the rage of enemies,
in order to be dragged to an ignominious death? But Christ declares that
all this takes place only by the will of God; and he proves this decree by
the testimony of Scripture, because God formerly revealed, by the mouth of
his Prophet, what he had determined. We now perceive what is intended
by the words of Christ. It was, that the disciples, knowing that what was
done was regulated by the providence of God, might not imagine that his
life or death was determined by chance. But the usefulness of this
doctrine extends much farther; for never are we fully confirmed in the
result of the death of Christ, till we are convinced that he was not
accidentally dragged by men to the cross, but that the sacrifice had been
appointed by an eternal decree of God for expiating the sins of the world.
For whence do we obtain reconciliation, but because Christ has appeased
the Father by his obedience?
Me:
Calvin takes the clearly devotional end of things. He concerns himself first
of all with the Cross of Christ, rather than the controversial matter
re: Judas. He sees the great shaking of pious minds in how the Son of God
could end up on a Cross unless it had been decreed by God, rather than left to
chance. The argument lies that unless God had decreed it, then it could not
obtain the required reconciliation.
Calvin: Wherefore
let us always place before our minds the providence of God, which Judas
himself, and all wicked men—though it is contrary to their wish, and though
they have another end in view—are compelled to obey. Let us always hold this to
be a fixed principle, that Christ suffered, because it pleased God to have
such an expiation.
Me: Calvin comes
now to the matter that concerns us in this particular study. Wicked Judas
(indeed all wicked men) are "compelled" to obey God,
even though it is contrary to their wish i.e. they had no pious wish
to obey God, having "another end in view" which (as
we know) for Judas was treachery and greed. If Calvin had left it there,
without the following explanation, then we might have room to murmur, but it is
not for us to snatch sentences here and there as if we were some prosecuting
lawyer, determined to get a result, no matter what. At this point, even
though Calvin has introduced the controversial subject, it is only to reaffirm
his first main and very encouraging thought i.e. Christ suffered because it
pleased God to have such an expiation.
Calvin: And
yet Christ does not affirm that Judas was freed from blame, on the ground that
he did nothing but what God had appointed. For though God, by his righteous
judgment, appointed for the price of our redemption the death of his Son, yet
nevertheless, Judas, in betraying Christ, brought upon himself righteous
condemnation, because he was full of treachery and avarice. In short, God’s
determination that the world should be redeemed, does not at all interfere
with Judas being a wicked traitor. Hence we perceive, that though men can
do nothing but what God has appointed, still this does not free them from
condemnation, when they are led by a wicked desire to sin. For though God
directs them, by an unseen bridle, to an end which is unknown to them, nothing
is farther from their intention than to obey his decrees.
Me:
Calvin moves to close any loopholes that he should be thought to affirm that
Judas was then free from any blame or God to be indicted for sin. He
affirms that the judgment of God is righteous in appointing redemption's price
to be through the Cross and also in the way that He dealt with Judas. Calvin
points out that Judas was no innocent - but was full of treachery and avarice.
The key phrase here which answers the overall question of this page is
this: "In short, God’s determination that the world should be
redeemed, does not at all interfere with Judas being a wicked
traitor." Yes, admits Calvin, they are under the bridle of God
to accomplish His holy ends, but (as I have written elsewhere) they are not
innocent people who are unfortunate enough in the wrong place at the wrong
time. This is not a stitch up. This is a guilty wretch being taken further than
he wanted to go. See Calvin's comments below on Matthew 27:3 for the sequel to
this story.
Calvin: Those
two principles, no doubt, appear to human reason to be inconsistent with each
other, that God regulates the affairs of men by his Providence in such a
manner, that nothing is done but by his will and command, and yet he damns the
reprobate, by whom he has carried into execution what he intended. But we see
how Christ, in this passage, reconciles both, by pronouncing a curse on Judas,
though what he contrived against God had been appointed by God; not that
Judas’s act of betraying ought strictly to be called the work of God, but
because God turned the treachery of Judas so as to accomplish His own purpose.
Me:
Calvin is not blind to the apparent inconsistencies which arise, but he insists
that God is free from any blame. He does so by playing up the sin of Judas.
Judas is the reprobate. His act is that of betrayal, which although appointed
by God, cannot strictly be called the work of God. All God has done (according
to Calvin) is to turn the treachery (already born in Judas'
heart) to accomplish His own righteous purpose.
Calvin: I
am aware of the manner in which some commentators endeavour to avoid this rock.
They acknowledge that what had been written was accomplished through the agency
of Judas, because God testified by predictions what He fore-knew. By way of
softening the doctrine, which appears to them to be somewhat harsh, they
substitute the foreknowledge of God in place of the decree, as if God merely
beheld from a distance future events, and did not arrange them according to his
pleasure. But very differently does the Spirit settle this question; for not
only does he assign as the reason why Christ was delivered up, that it was so
written, but also that it was so determined.
For where
Matthew and Mark quote Scripture, Luke leads us direct to the heavenly decree,
saying, according to what was determined; as also in the Acts of the Apostles,
he shows that Christ was delivered not only by the foreknowledge, but likewise
by the fixed purpose of God, (Acts 2:25) and a little afterwards, that Herod
and Pilate, with other wicked men, did those things which had been
fore-ordained by the hand and purpose of God, (Acts 4:27, 28.) Hence it is
evident that it is but an ignorant subterfuge which is employed by those who
betake themselves to bare foreknowledge.
Me:
Calvin is also aware of a softer option here which bases the whole matter on
what God - as a mere spectator - could foresee
rather than decree. However, Calvin wisely
keeps to the various Scripture references which he quotes that use the
word determinate and rightly rejects the lesser option an
ignorant subterfuge.
Calvin: It had been good for that man... By this expression we are taught what
a dreadful vengeance awaits the wicked, for whom it would have been
better that they had never been born. And yet this life, though
transitory, and full of innumerable distresses, is an invaluable gift of
God. Again, we also infer from it, how detestable is their wickedness,
which not only extinguishes the precious gifts of God, and turns them to
their destruction, but makes it to have been better for them that they had
never tasted the goodness of God. But this phrase is worthy of
observation, it would have been good for that man if he had never been
born; for though the condition of Judas was wretched, yet to have created
him was good in God, who, appointing the reprobate to the day of
destruction, illustrates also in this way his own glory, as Solomon tells
us: The Lord hath made all things for himself; yea, even the wicked
for the day of evil, (Proverbs 16:4.) The secret government of God, which
provides even the schemes and works of men, is thus vindicated, as I
lately noticed, from all blame and suspicion.
Me:
Notice how Calvin keeps referring to Judas (and others of his ilk) i.e. "the
wicked" - "their wickedness" - "the reprobate" This is
how God dealt with him. Thus if appointed to the day of
destruction, it is as a reprobate (and thus judicial) and if made for the day
of evil (as in Psalm 16:4) - it is as one who is wicked. Again, never the
innocent bystander. Calvin homes in on the nature of their wickedness and
shows it to be detestable. This is because they take the good gifts of God
and [i] extinguish them and [ii] turn them to their destruction. Calvin claims
that have clearly tasted the goodness of God, but their sin makes it such that
it would have been better had they not. Judas was wretched in what he did, yet
he had been created good in God (cp. Gen 1:1/Eccles 7:29). Calvin concludes
this important paragraph by showing that God is vindicated from all blame and
suspicion.
Calvin: 25. And Judas who betrayed him. Though we often see persons
trembling, who are conscious of doing wrong, yet along with dread and
secret torments there is mingled such stupidity, that they boldly make a
fiat denial; but in the end they gain nothing by their impudence but to
expose their hidden wickedness. Thus Judas, while he is restrained by an
evil conscience, cannot remain silent; so dreadfully is he tormented, and,
at the same time, overwhelmed with fear and anxiety, by that
internal executioner. Christ, by indirectly glancing, in his reply, at the
foolish rashness of Judas, entreats him to consider the crime which he
wished to conceal; but his mind, already seized with diabolical rage,
could not admit such a sentiment. Let us learn from this example, that the
wicked, by bold apologies, do nothing more than draw down upon themselves
a more sudden judgment.
Me:
Even the Scripture (from which Calvin always took his lead) now identifies
Judas as the one "who betrayed him" because we
should never separate Judas from his sins in speaking of his role in the death
of Christ. Calvin focuses here also on the internal struggles of Judas with his
tormented conscience which he calls his "internal executioner." Thus,
Judas condemned himself. In this verse, as Calvin points out, Christ indirectly
entreats Judas to consider the foolish rashness of the crime that he was
secretly planning. But Judas, seized by a devilish rage, could not bring himself
to admit to such a thing (even though planning it in his heart) and so brought
himself, as a enboldened wicked person, a more sudden judgment. In this
last sentence, Calvin shows that the matter applied more than merely to Judas,
applying it to all the wicked, because God did not deal with Judas in any
particular novel fashion.
The sequel to
the Judas incident. When we preach the gospel, we preach it to elect and
reprobate alike. While it might be said that we do not know
who is elect and reprobate (Who would've thought that the Repentant Thief
hanging naked on a Cross would have been numbered among the elect?) - yet God
does. And God, who knows, still wants us to preach this glorious gospel to
everyone without exception or distinction. Where did Judas stand in regards to
this? The verse below i.e. Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he
saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty
pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, (Matthew 27:3) shows
us very clearly. Once again, Calvin's quote (relevant part pertaining
to this particular thought) is in italic
black with my comments in non
italic red underneath.
Calvin: If
Judas had listened to the warning of Christ, there would still have been place
for repentance; but since he despised so gracious an offer of salvation, he is
given up to the dominion of Satan, that he may throw him into despair. But if
the Papists were right in what they teach in their schools about repentance, we
could find no defect in that of Judas, to which their definition of repentance
fully applies; for we perceive in it contrition of heart, and confession of the
mouth, and satisfactionof deed, as they talk. Hence we infer, that they take
nothing more than the bark; for they leave out what was the chief point, the
conversion of the man to God, when the sinner, broken down by shame and fear,
denies himself so as to render obedience to righteousness (Matthew 27:3). Let
us therefore learn, that when we see wicked persons, with whom we have any
thing in common, filled with alarm, those are so many excitements to
repentance, and that they who neglect such excitements aggravate their
criminality. (Matthew 27:4)
Me:
Here Calvin states the Evangelical obvious: Judas was warned by
Christ but refused to listen. Had he done so, then there was
still room for repentance, because none who seek repentance fail to find
it. As a consequence ("since") of despising "so gracious an
offer of salvation" - Judas was therefore judicially given up to Satan's
grip and from there into despair. After he points out the failure of the
RC's to define true repentance, Calvin returns to the failure of Judas to have
been broken down by shame and fear and consequently "denied himself"
(signficiant words) so as to render [Evangelical] obedience to righteousness.
Even these words, moved from the deeply theological mysteries of the
decrees to the more practical matter of the gospel, show that Judas can blame
none but himself. Calvin's comments on v4 show again that God excites the
wicked to repentance and that neglect of these must not only be blamed on the
wicked themselves, but actually aggravates their criminality.
Calvin made other statements, all of which are entirely consistent with
what is recorded above:
1) MAN ALWAYS
SINS WILLINGLY AND EAGERLY - NOT BY ANY FORCED COMPULSION FROM WITHOUT:
The chief point of
this distinction, then, must be that man, as he was corrupted by the Fall, sinned
willingly, not unwillingly or by compulsion; by the most eager inclination
of his heart, not by forced compulsion; by the prompting of his own lust, not
by compulsion from without. (Institutes 2:3:5)
We must, therefore, acquiesce in the judgment of God, which pronounces man
to be so enslaved by sin that he can bring forth nothing sound and sincere.
yet, at the same time, we must remember, that no blame is to be cast upon
God for that which has its origin in the defection of the first man, whereby
the order of creation was subverted. And further, it must be noted,
that men are not exempted from guilt and condemnation, by the pretext of
bondage: because although all rush to evil, yet they are not impelled by any
extrinsic force, but by the direct inclination of their own hearts; and
lastly, they sin not otherwise than voluntarily. (Comments on Genesis
8:22)
13. Let no man, when he is tempted. Here, no doubt, he
speaks of another kind of temptation. It is abundantly evident that the
external temptations, hitherto mentioned, are sent to us by God. In this way
God tempted Abraham, (Genesis 22:1,) and daily tempts us, that is, he tries us
as to what are we by laying before us an occasion by which our hearts are made
known. But to draw out what is hid in our hearts is a far different thing
from inwardly alluring our hearts by wicked lusts. He then treats here of
inward temptations which are nothing else than the inordinate
desires which entice to sin. He justly denies that God is the author of
these, because they flow from the corruption of our nature. This warning is very necessary, for nothing is more common
among men than to transfer to another the blame of the evils they commit; and
they then especially seem to free themselves, when they ascribe it to God
himself. This kind of evasion we constantly imitate, delivered down
to us as it is from the first man. For this reason James calls us to
confess our own guilt, and not to implicate God, as though he compelled us to
sin. But the whole doctrine of scripture seems to be inconsistent with this
passage; for it teaches us that men are blinded by God, are given up to a
reprobate mind, and delivered over to filthy and shameful lusts. To this I
answer, that probably James was induced to deny that we are tempted by God by
this reason, because the ungodly, in order to form an excuse, armed themselves
with testimonies of Scripture. But there are two things to be noticed
here: when Scripture ascribes blindness or hardness of heart to God, it
does not assign to him the beginning of this blindness, nor does itmake him the
author of sin, so as to ascribe to him the blame: and on these two things
only does James dwell. Scripture asserts that the reprobate are delivered
up to depraved lusts; but is it because the Lord depraves or corrupts
their hearts? By no means; for their hearts are subjected to depraved
lusts, because they are already corrupt and vicious. But since God blinds or
hardens, is he not the author or minister of evil? Nay, but in this manner
he punishes sins, and renders a just reward to the ungodly, who have
refused to be ruled by his Spirit. (Romans 1:6.) It hence follows that the
origin of sin is not in God, and no blame can be imputed to him as though he
took pleasure in evils. (Genesis 6:6.) The meaning is, that man in vain
evades, who attempts to cast the blame of his vices on God, because every
evil proceeds from no other fountain than from the wicked lust of man. And the
fact really is, that we are not otherwise led astray, except that every one has
his own inclination as his leader and impeller. But that God tempts no one, he
proves by this, because he is not tempted with evils. For it is the devil
who allures us to sin, and for this reason, because he wholly burns with the
mad lust of sinning. But God does not desire what is evil: he is not,
therefore, the author of doing evil in us. (Commentary on James 1:13)
(Other statements will be added as time permits.)
2) ALTHOUGH GOD DECREES
TO USE THE ACTIONS OF THE UNGODLY TO FURTHER HIS OWN ENDS, YET MAN MUST BE
GUIDED BY THE REVEALED WILL OF GOD AND HAS NO EXCUSE FOR HIS CRIMES:
He says that he has given a loose rein to the fierceness of
enemies, that they may indulge without control in every kind of violence
and injustice. Now, this must not be understood as if the Assyrians
had a command from God by which they could excuse themselves. There are
two ways in which God commands; by his secret decree, of which men are not
conscious; and by his law, in which he demands from us voluntary
obedience. This must be carefully observed, that we may reply to
fanatics, who argue in an irreligious manner about the decree of God, when they
wish to excuse their own wickedness and that of others. It is of importance,
I say, to make a judicious distinction between these two ways of
commanding. When the Lord reveals his will in the law, I must not
ascend to his secret decree, which he intended should not be known to me,
but must yield implicit obedience. Now, if any one allege that
he obeys God, when he complies with his sinful passions, he is guilty of
falsehood, by vainly attempting to involve God in the guilt of his crimes,
to which he knows that he is led by the failings of his own heart; for on this
point no other witness or judge is needed but a man’s own conscience. God
does indeed make use of the agency of a wicked man, but the man has no
such intention. It is therefore accidental, so far as relates to men,
that he acts by the wicked and reprobate; for they neither know that they
serve God, nor wish to do so. Accordingly if they seize on this pretext,
it is easy to prove that, when they yield obedience to their own
sinful passion, they are at the greatest possible distance from obeying
God. They have the will of God declared in his law, so that it is in
vain for them to seek it anywhere else. So far as they are concerned,
they do not perform the work of God, but the work of the devil; for they
serve their own lusts. (Ephesians 2:2.) Nothing certainly was farther from
the intention of the Assyrians than to give their services to God,
but they were hurried along by their lust and ambition
and covetousness. Yet the Lord directed their exertions and plans to
an object which was totally different, and which was unknown to themselves.
(Comments on Isaiah 10:7)
(Other statements will be added as time permits.)
3) CALVIN WROTE THAT IT WAS AN ABSURDITY TO TEACH THAT GOD WAS THE
AUTHOR OF EVIL OR THAT MEN DO NOT SIN WHEN THEIR WICKEDNESS IS USED OF GOD,
SEEING THAT THEY DO NOT OBEY HIS REVEALED LAW:
Because Peter seemeth to grant that the wicked did obey God, hereupon followeth
two absurdities; the one, either that God is the author of evil, or that men do
not sin, what wickedness soever they commit. I answer, concerning the second,
that the wicked do nothing less than obey God, howsoever they do execute that
which God hath determined with himself. For obedience springeth from a
voluntary affection; and we know that the wicked have a far other purpose.
Again, no man obeyeth God save he which knoweth his will. Therefore, obedience
dependeth upon the knowledge of God’s will. Furthermore, God hath revealed unto
us his will in the law; wherefore, those men do obey God, who do that alone
which is agreeable to the law of God; and, again, which submit themselves
willingly to his government. We see no such thing in all the wicked, whom God
doth drive hither and thither, they themselves being ignorant. No man,
therefore, will say that they are excusable under this color, because they obey
God; forasmuch as both the will of God must be sought in his law, and they, so
much as in them lieth, do God. As touching the other point, I deny that God is
the author of evil; because there is a certain nothing of a wicked affection in
this word. For the wicked deed is esteemed according to the end whereat a man
aimeth. When men commit theft or murder, they offend for this cause,
because they are thieves or murderers; and in theft and murder there is a
wicked purpose. God, who useth their wickedness, is to be placed in the higher
degree. For he hath respect unto a far other thing, because he will chastise
the one, and exercise the patience of the other; and so he doth never decline
from his nature, that is, from perfect righteousness. So that, whereas Christ
was delivered by the hands of wicked men, whereas he was crucified, it came to
pass by the appointment and ordinance of God. But treason, which is of itself
wicked, and murder, which hath in it so great wickedness, must not be thought
to be the works of God. (Comment on Acts 2:23)
(Other statements will be
added as time permits.)
3a) CALVIN TAUGHT THAT THIS IS HOW WE MUST INTERPRET THE
PROVIDENCE OF GOD:
Notwithstanding herein is contained a singular doctrine, that God doth so
govern and guide all things by his secret counsel, that, he doth bring to pass
those things which he hath determined, even by the wicked. Not that they
are ready willingly to do him such service, but because he turneth their
counsels and attempts backward; so that on the one side appeareth great equity
and most great righteousness; on the other appeareth nought but wickedness and
iniquity. Which matter we have handled more at large in the second
chapter. [My note: See above quote from Acts 2:23] Let us
learn here, by the way, that we must so consider the providence of God, that we
know that it is the chief and only guider of all things which are done in the
world, that the devil and all the wicked are kept back with God’s bridle, lest
they should do us any harm; that when they rage fastest, yet are they not at
liberty to do what they list, but have the bridle given them, yet so far forth
as is expedient to exercise us. (Comments: Acts 4:24-31)
(Other statements will be added as time permits.)
4) MAN'S HARDENING IS TO ATTRIBUTED EXCLUSIVELY TO THEIR OWN DEPRAVITY:
It is not the duty of the Prophets, therefore, to blind the eyes, but rather
to open them. Again, it is called perfect wisdom, (psalm 19:9) how then does it
stupify men and take away their reason? Those hearts which formerly were of
brass or iron ought to be softened by it; how then is it possible that it can
harden them, as I have already observed? Such blinding and hardening
influence does not arise out of the nature of the word, but is accidental, and
must be ascribed exclusively to the depravity of man. As dim-sighted
people cannot blame the sun for dazzling their eyes with its brightness; and
those whose hearing is weak cannot complain of a clear and loud voice which the
defect of their ears hinders them from hearing; and, lastly, a man of weak
intellect cannot find fault with the difficulty of a subject which he is unable
to understand; so ungodly men have no right to blame the word for making them
worse after having heard it. The whole blame lies on themselves in
altogether refusing it admission; and we need not wonder if that which ought to
have led them to salvation become the cause of their destruction. It is
right that the treachery and unbelief of men should be punished by meeting
death where they might have received life, darkness where they might have
had light; and, in short, evils as numerous as the blessings of salvation
which they might have obtained. This ought to be carefully observed; for
nothing is more customary with men than to abuse the gifts of God, and then not
only to maintain that they are innocent, but even to be proud of appearing in
borrowed feathers. But they are doubly wicked when they not only do not apply
to their proper use, but wickedly corrupt and profane, those gifts which God
had bestowed on them. (Comment on Isaiah 6:10)
(Other statements will be added as time permits.)
5) MAN'S DAMNATION IS ALWAYS ATTRIBUTED TO THE GUILT OF HIS SIN AND NOTHING
ELSE:
You shall find throughout all my books, how I have taught, that we
must not seek our perdition anywhere else than in ourselves and in our perverse
will. (An answer to a libel against Predestination - adjoined to Sermons on
Election & Predestination - p312)
"The fact that the reprobate do not obey
God’s Word when it is made known to them will be justly charged against the
malice and depravity of their hearts, provided it be added at the same time
that they have been given over to this depravity because they have been raised
up by the just but inscrutable judgment of God to show forth his glory in their
condemnation. Similarly, when it is narrated of Eli’s sons that they did not
heed his wholesome admonitions, “for it was the will of the Lord to slay them”
[1 Samuel 2:25], it is not denied that their stubbornness arose out of their
own wickedness; but at the same time it is noted why they were left
in their stubbornness, even though the Lord could have softened their
hearts—because his immutable decree had once for all destined them to
destruction." (Institutes 3:24:12)
Please note: In his decree, God deals with
the reprobate as guilty sinners - not as neutral
creatures who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Those who
argue that Calvin taught that God raised up men with no other purpose than to
damn them miss the mark. Hence Calvin wrote:
Accordingly, we should contemplate the evident cause of condemnation in the
corrupt nature of humanity—which is closer to us—rather than seek a hidden and
utterly incomprehensible cause in God’s predestination. (Institutes 3:23:8)
(Other statements will be
added as time permits.)
* CALVINIST INDEX
* PROTESTANT INDEX
* CH SPURGEON INDEX
* EVANGELISM INDEX
* HERE AND THERE INDEX
* 1 MINUTE AUDIOBOO INDEX
