Ryrie

It must be said that Ryrie is not my first port of call when it comes to theology. I am more likely to stretch for the systematic theologies of Dabney or any one of a number of Reformed theologians in my study than for Ryrie. But still, he may give another insight into those things where the Reformed men speak with one voice and when to read one is to effectively read them all. This encouraged me to buy the book.

Having said that, with all his Dispensationalism and other no-no stuff (generally speaking) for Reformed Christians, Ryrie does go all Calvinistic on us in some areas. Well, at least on the sovereignty of God and particularly in his affirmation of the doctrine of UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION.

I have been amazed to read the claim that Ryrie had no Calvinistic leanings.  This is not so, as the following evidence proves. Note: No one is claiming here that Ryrie is a five point Calvinist. He argues with the usual arguments against the doctrine of Particular Redemption, but at least on the doctrine of UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION (and think of the often blasphemous abuse which Calvinists take over this doctrine) Ryrie is as thoroughly Calvinistic as any of us. I quote some of what he has written:

SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD: 

"Ultimately God is in control of all things, though He may choose to let certain events happen according to natural laws which He has ordained."

"God has a plan (Acts 15:18) which is all inclusive (Eph. 1.11) which He controls (Ps. 135:6), which includes but does not involve Him in evil (Pro. 16:4) and which is ultimately to the praise of His glory (Eph. 1:14)."

"The problem: The sovereignty of God seems to contradict the freedom or actually responsibility of man. But even though it may seem to do so, the perfection of sovereignty is clearly taught in the Scriptures, so it must not be denied because of our inability to reconcile it with freedom or responsibility. Also, if God is sovereign, how can the creation be so filled with evil? Man was created with genuine freedom, but the exercise of that freedom in rebellion against God introduced sin into the human race. Though God was the Designer of the plan, He was in no way involved in the commission of evil either on the part of Satan originally or of Adam subsequently. Even though God hates sin, for reasons not revealed to us, sin is present by His permission. Sin must be within God's eternal plan (or God would not be sovereign) in some way which He is not the author of it (or God could not be holy.)" 

THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION:

"Direct terminology: 1. Election. Election emphasises God's free choice of individuals to salvation (the election of Christ, Israel or angels are not under consideration here.) When Paul uses the verb, he uses it in the middle voice, indicating that God's choice was made freely and for His own purposes (1 Cor. 1:27-28; Eph. 1:4). Individual Thessalonians were chosen (2 Thess. 2:13); as many were set (previous to their believing) in the group of those who would have eternal life did believe (Acts 13:48); Paul was a chosen instrument (for salvation and service, Acts 9:15, Gal. 1:15)and some individuals names were not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8; 17:8) which must mean some were. Election is unconditional and individual."

2. To predestine is to preplan a destiny. The word prooizo means to mark off beforehand. The death of Christ and its meaning were predestined by God (Acts 4:28; 1 Cor. 2:7) God's elect are predestined to adoption (Eph. 1:5), to an inheritance (v11), and to ultimate conformity to Christ (Rom. 8:28-29).

Biblically, predestination is limited to the elect people and assures their present position and future destiny. Theologically, the term has been used to include all things, that is, as a synonym for the total plan of God. From this theological definition, it is an easy step for some forms of Calvinism to use predestination in relation to the destiny of the non elect. Thus there arises a doctrine of double predestination. However, this is a logical assumption, not based on Biblical texts. The Bible is clear that the elect are predestined, but it never suggests that there is a similar decree to elect some to damnation. The Scriptures seem content to leave that matter as a mystery, and so should we." 

3. Foreknowledge. The word proginosko is used (a) of prior, temporal knowledge (Acts 26:5; 2 Pet 3:17); (b) of God's relation to Israel (Rom. 11:2) (c) of Christ's sacrifice (Acts 2:23; 1 Pet 1:20); and (d) of God's people today (Rom. 8:29; 1 Pet. 1:2) 

The debate centres round the question of how much relationship exists in the word 'foreknowledge.' Does it mean merely that God foreknows in the sense of foreseeing without any relationship? Or, as Calvinism holds, does it mean that He related Himself to people before time in some way so that there is a causative connection that makes foreknow practically equivalent to predestine or foreordain? Clearly people are foreknown, not their faith (Rom. 8:28-29) Clearly too, foreknowledge as a mere perception is not the basis of election, for 1 Peter 1:2 includes a decision on God's part. Election is in harmony (kata) with foreknowledge and that foreknowledge included a procedure used in working out the choice. Therefore, there is some relationship and/or decision inherent in the meaning of foreknow. Certainly verse 20 includes those ideas or it would assure nothing about the sacrifice of Christ. Likewise there is decisiveness and certainty in Acts 2:23 and Romans 11:2. An  apocrypha use of the word also includes certainty: 'And Thy judgements are in Thy foreknowledge" (Judith 9:6). To be sure, the word does not say 'elect,' but neither can it be reduced to a neutral concept of perception only. It does include decision that in turn hasto involve an assurance that comes from certainty.

C. Opposite Terminology, By this I mean the ideas involved in retribution and preterition. Retribution means deserved punishment, while preterition is the passing over of those not elected to salvation. Both terms avoid the concept involved in double predestination or reprobation, which means foreordination to damnation. None of these terms appear in the Scripture, though the idea is clearly taught in Romans 9:18,21; 1 Peter 2:8; and Revelation 17:8. Therefore, the Scriptures do contain a doctrine of preterition, though there is not a decree to condemn in the same sense that there is a decree to elect. Obviously the very idea of election has to include the idea of a greater number out of which they were chosen, and those who were not chosen were certainly passed by.

This in no sense implies that God delights in the destiny of the wicked, or that they are driven against their wills, or that the doctrine of election nullifies a 'whosoever will' Gospel, or that any individual can know that he is not elect and thereby try to excuse himself from rejecting Christ. All are accountable to God for their attitude towards Christ."

Mr Ryrie under the heading: III THE DOCTRINE SUMMARIZED goes over the ground thus covered above, reducing it to a number of shorter sentences e.g. Election is individual and not based on foresight etc. An interesting and entirely accurate (and Calvinist) application of the doctrine lies in the statement: "Election Alone Does Not Result In The Salvation Of People" 

The key word is the word "alone" because Mr Ryrie, having correctly taught the unconditional election of individuals unto salvation, assures us in his opening words:

 "To be sure, election assures that those chosen will be saved..." 

Again, the word "alone" is absolutely correct because it took the death of the Christ and the evangelisation of the sinner and the faith of the sinner to bring about the salvation that was thus guaranteed by the sovereign and unconditional election of God. This is all good stuff. This Calvinist i.e. me certainly is being blessed as he prepares this article for your consumption. 

In IV OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION, Mr Ryrie articulates several Calvinist responses to those hoary old objections that have signally failed over the centuries. He answers the objection that it equates to fatalism, because fatalism is blind chance whereas  election flows from an intelligent, loving Being. Fatalism has no use of means, whereas the decree of God includes the means to its fulfilment and so embraces human responsibility. He comments that Ephesians 1:11 "spotlights all things, not solely ends." 

He also answers the objection that the doctrine of election is inconsistent with human freedom. He does so by reminding man that he is created as a responsible being and ought to do those things consistent with this truth. By illustration, he covers the thought that the day of our death is ordained of God (but we still eat to stay alive) and that God planned to answer our prayers, so we still pray. He then moves into the area of salvation again. Here is naked Calvinism (at least in this fundamental part) comes to the fore. 

"Or again, Does God know who are the elect? Of course, He elected them. Can any of them be lost? no. Then why pray and witness? Because this is how they will be saved. Will any of them fail to believe? No. Why then do they have to believe? Because that is the only way they can be saved, and unless they do believe, they will  not be saved..." 

He continually cautions against asking theoretical and useless questions, urging us instead of to concentrate on doing what is God's will [my note: as revealed in the Scriptures] and to act responsibly.

Another serious objection to the doctrine of election is answered i.e. that it makes God the author of sin.

"I think we must acknowledge that God did construct a plan that included sin, and that it's inclusion did not come as a surprise. Yet we must guard the clear teaching of Scripture that God hates sin (Ps. 5:5), that He is never responsible for our committing sin (James 1:13), and that including sin in His plan does not make it somehow less sinful and us less culpable."  

Stating that Proverbs 16:4 "teaches also that all things are included in God's plan" Mr Ryrie acknowledges some unresolved tensions in the Bible on this matter and rightly urges us to seek a balance. 

Nine pages on, Mr Ryrie draws his observation to a close:

"Finally, face their ramification of all things not being included in one way of another in God's plan. This would mean that there are things outside of His control, and that is a frightening idea." 


The conclusion of the chapter is most interesting here. At least from a Calvinist point of view. Mr Ryries theological work is used in many places where John Calvin's name and views are little less than a "cuss word" (to quote my old friend #Wylie). However, the learned writer evidently knows nothing of such vilification and quotes extensively from Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion Book 1 Chapter 17 paragraph 10 which (to save time and space may be perused here) 

Having urged the reader to "Listen to these words of John Calvin:" Mr Ryrie urges the further enlightened reader on to an act of devotion, using the words of Paul in Romans 11:33-36:

O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

This article proved to be a bit lengthy (Nine pages in the original book ) but I have consciously given a faithful precis of its contents. It must be said, again, that though I radically disagree with Mr Ryrie on some other matters, yet on this matter of UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION and its ramifications, I am in basic agreement.

* CALVINIST INDEX
* PROTESTANT INDEX
* CH SPURGEON INDEX
* EVANGELISM INDEX
* HERE AND THERE INDEX
* YOUTUBE VIDEO INDEX
* 3 MINUTE AUDIOBOO INDEX

Chosen not for good in me podcast

Click here to access Twitter Based Podcast

Waldenses2

 

Click Photograph to Enlarge

* CALVINIST INDEX
* PROTESTANT INDEX
* CH SPURGEON INDEX
* EVANGELISM INDEX
* HERE AND THERE INDEX
* YOUTUBE VIDEO INDEX
* 3 MINUTE AUDIOBOO INDEX

Moody on election

Calvinist Evangelist D. L. Moody

"The elect are the whosoever wills. The non elect are the whosoever wonts"  

(DL Moody)

I have covered DL Moody's “scented Calvinistic theology” (to quote CH Spurgeon) elsewhere on this blog and you are referred to the evidence presented there. If both ardent Calvinists, Spurgeon and Bonar (who were actually co-workers with Moody in evangelism) recognised his commitment to Bible Calvinism, then I will run with their judgement over 100 years later.

As a Five Point Calvinist, I am more than happy to endorse his observations on election as expressed above. Obviously much more could be said about this great doctrine, but for a simple gospel application, Moody's words are superb.  The elect are indeed the 'whosoever wills' because the elect will be found willing in the day of God's power (Psalm 110:3) Whom God foreknew, them He predestined and whom He predestines He calls (i.e. effectually) and they are the ones He justifies. The non elect, OTH, are those who wont i.e. they will not come to Christ that they might have life. (John 5:40) The "whosoever wonts" (to take Moody's phrase) are they of whom Calvin wrote in his exposition of John 5:40:

"He again reproaches them that it is nothing but their own malice that hinders them from becoming partakers of the life offered in the Scriptures; for when he says that they will not, he imputes the cause of their ignorance and blindness to wickedness and obstinacy. And, indeed, since he offered himself to them so graciously, they must have been wilfully blind; but when they intentionally fled from the light, and even desired to extinguish the sun by the darkness of their unbelief, Christ justly reproves them with greater severity." (John 5:40)

So well done Mr Moody for giving this deep doctrine a very practical and gospel orientated application. No wonder, Mr Spurgeon and Bonar and many Calvinists admired your work for God. We salute your memory.

* CALVINIST INDEX
* PROTESTANT INDEX
* CH SPURGEON INDEX
* EVANGELISM INDEX
* HERE AND THERE INDEX
* YOUTUBE VIDEO INDEX
* 3 MINUTE AUDIOBOO INDEX

Why me?

 

Click on Picture to Enlarge 

 Other helpful pages from this blog on this important subject:

* 12 Proofs CHS held to the Calvinist doctrine of Unconditional Election  

* Who made thee a differ? Eavesdropping
* The "I cast the deciding vote" view of election analysed
* Dr Dwight Pentecost affirming Unconditional Election 
* Charles G Ryrie affirming Unconditional Election etc.


See also:

CH SPURGEON'S WHOLE SERMON ENTITLED: JACOB AND ESAU
CH SPURGEON'S WHOLE SERMON ENTITLED: ELECTION


* CALVINIST INDEX
* PROTESTANT INDEX
* CH SPURGEON INDEX
* EVANGELISM INDEX
* HERE AND THERE INDEX
* YOUTUBE VIDEO INDEX
* 3 MINUTE AUDIOBOO INDEX

nightmare

WHY A CALVINIST NIGHTMARE CAN BE YOUR NIGHTMARE TOO...

Many attacks (and I am viewing the above as such) on Calvinism often prove to be a two edged sword. One problem with forging a big stick (to change the metaphor) to beat others is that the same club can be used to beat you.

Consider the above scenario for Calvinists. According to the tweet, we have nightmares because we are horrified that it is possible for our children not be numbered among the elect. My reply is as follows:

1) If by this it is meant that we fear that we should bring children into the world and watch them grow up unsaved, eventually to stubbornly die in sin without God and therefore without hope – then I say that such concern is entirely rational. Parenthood is a tremendous responsibility that no one should take lightly. However, it is the fear not only of the Calvinist Christian, but of any Bible Christian whether he subscribes to sovereign grace or not. I would hope that the non Calvinists have a burden for their children and desire and work to see them brought in saving faith to the feet of the Saviour. IOW: The issue is not exclusively a Calvinist one. Hence my title above.

2) While God has revealed certain great truths about election (and its related truth of reprobation) in His word – most notably in Romans 9 – yet such truths were never given so that any man interested in the salvation of his soul might despair. By extension, the same truth is that we should never despair of  the salvation of others who are still above the sod. The bare fact is this: If there was no such doctrine as election, then there would be no salvation. Without election, no one would seek the Lord while He is to be found nor call upon Him while He is near. (Isaiah 55:7) Without election,  absolutely no one would ever repent or believe the gospel. The doctrine either of election or reprobation does not in any way narrow the meaning of the word “whosoever” i.e. “all without exception” and any sinner can look at those words “Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely” (Revelation 22:17) and conclude that he is a candidate for the invitation. 

3) Why are some sinners lost? Ultimately the cause is sin and sin alone. John 3:19 is so clear. So clear that Mr Calvin observed:

“19. And this is the condemnation. He meets the murmurs and complaints, by which wicked men are wont to censure — what they imagine to be the excessive rigour of God, when he acts towards them with greater severity than they expected. All think it harsh that they who do not believe in Christ should be devoted to destruction. That no man may ascribe his condemnation to Christ, he shows that every man ought to impute the blame to himself. The reason is, that unbelief is a testimony of a bad conscience; and hence it is evident that it is their own wickedness which hinders unbelievers from approaching to Christ. Some think that he points out here nothing more than the mark of condemnation; but, the design of  Christ is, to restrain the wickedness of men, that they may not, according  to their custom, dispute or argue with God, as if he treated them unjustly,  when he punishes unbelief with eternal death. He shows that such a condemnation is just, and is not liable to any reproaches, not only because those men act wickedly, who prefer darkness to light, and refuse the light which is freely offered to them, but because that hatred of the light arises only from a mind that is wicked and conscious of its guilt.”

Does God leave some people in their sins? Again, Calvinist Christians and non Calvinist Christians affirm. We both hold that he leaves the chronic stubborn and unrepentant wicked in their sins. We both agree that no man  - even the elect - is forced against his will to be saved. That God will ultimately intervene in the life an elect soul is undoubtedly true. As we observe above, unless He does so, then no soul can regenerate himself and so be made fit for Heaven. Hell would be full and Heaven empty unless there is a divine and supernatural intervention. Election is not of faith or because of foreseen faith but election is unto faith. Faith is the fruit of election. Unbelief is the fruit of sin. Reprobation never made anyone a sinner, but justly trusts him as such. Reprobation is God justly respecting the free will decision of some sinners to stubbornly love the darkness rather than the light and do their own thing.

You are always going to get into trouble if you play one truth in God’s word against the other. This is what the above tweet is trying to do. Divine Sovereignty and Man’s Freedom and Responsibility go hand in hand.

4) In his infinite wisdom, God did not give us a peek into the Book of Life to see who will or who will not eventually come to faith in Jesus Christ. God has given us reason to hope for the salvation of any sinner. Who would ever have thought that the Dying Thief would have been saved? Or the Christ hating, Christian murdering Saul of Tarsus? Not only did He give us hope, but again, invoking the attributes of His wisdom and mercy etc., He gave us a specific work to do as the means of the conversion of sinners, including our own offspring. It was God who commanded us to “Preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15). On the practical side, that means that we not only brush the little curl from the forehead of our children as they fall asleep, but instead of trying to probe into something which we cannot know (short of their conversion) we also pray for their salvation and witness to them faithfully of the Saviour.

Calvinism isn’t fatalism. It recognises that God is in sovereign control and that salvation is of the Lord. History shows that this great truth spurred Calvinist missionaries and evangelists out of their beds and easy chairs and into the hottest part of the battle, assured that their labour could never be vain in the Lord.

THE END

INDEXES:

* CALVINIST INDEX
* PROTESTANT INDEX
* CH SPURGEON INDEX
* EVANGELISM INDEX
* HERE AND THERE INDEX

wcfq20

 

CLICK ON PICTURE TO ENLARGE

* CH Spurgeon on the Westminister Confession of Faith
* CH Spurgeon on the Shorter Catechism of the WCF

INDEXES:

* CALVINIST INDEX
* PROTESTANT INDEX
* CH SPURGEON INDEX
* EVANGELISM INDEX
* HERE AND THERE INDEX

predest4

John Calvin

Thank you for keeping with me over this 4 post subject. I trust that it has proved helpful to you. As said in previous posts, any who criticise Calvin on these things have never read his actual comments (usually following in what Spurgeon called the "imaginations of their own brain") o rthey latch upon some isolated quote snatched from a third and biased source. In these posts, we will go back to the original source. 

 JOHN CALVIN ON ROMANS 9 (Part 4)

 Did John Calvin teach double predestination? If so, what did he mean by it? Did Calvin condemn to Hell people who ought not to be there? Or (worse still) attribute such a thing to the One whose nature is Love? Read below for the answers to these important questions. First we will give the appropriate verses from Romans 9, then Calvin's comments in black in the left hand column with my analysis of Calvin's thought in dark blue in the right hand column. 

* Part 1 concerns Romans 9:10-13  

* Part 2 concerns Romans 9:14-18  

* Part 3 concerns Romans 9:22-23

SCRIPTURE: (Romans 9:22-24) What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

22. And what, etc. A second answer, by which he briefly shows, that though the counsel of God is in fact incomprehensible, yet his unblamable justice shines forth no less in the perdition of the reprobate than in the salvation of the elect. He does not indeed give a reason for divine election, so as to assign a cause why this man is chosen and that man rejected; for it was not meet that the things contained in the secret counsel of God should be subjected to the judgment of men; and, besides, this mystery is inexplicable. He therefore keeps us from curiously examining those things which exceed human comprehension. He yet shows, that as far as God’s predestination manifests itself, it appears perfectly just.	Our non Calvinist friends will, of course, disagree with us here. They assign a reason why the elect are elected and that reason (they say) is faith. They say: No faith = No election. We Calvinists, OTOH, say that faith is the fruit of election (and not the cause) and so  No election = No faith.  To go back to what Calvin actually writes here, apart from the obvious difference, there is nothing that is actually going to cause a non Calvinist to faint or pass out :o)
The particles, ei de, used by Paul, I take to mean, And what if? so that the whole sentence is a question; and thus the sense will be more evident: and there is here an ellipsis, when we are to consider this as being understood, — "Who then can charge him with unrighteousness, or arraign him?” for here appears nothing but the most perfect course of justice. But if we wish fully to understand Paul, almost every word must be examined. He then argues thus, — There are vessels prepared for destruction, that is, given up and appointed to destruction: they are also vessels of wrath, that is, made and formed for this end, that they may be examples of God’s vengeance and displeasure. If the Lord bears patiently for a time with these, not destroying them at the first moment, butdeferring the judgment prepared for them, and this in order to set forth the decisions of his severity, that others may be terrified by so dreadful examples, and also to make known his power, to exhibit which he makes them in various ways to serve; and, further, that the amplitude of his mercy towards the elect may hence be more fully known and more brightly shine forth ; — what is there worthy of being reprehended in this dispensation? But that he is silent as to the reason, why they are vessels appointed to destruction, is no matter of wonder. He indeed takes it as granted, according to what has been already said, that the reason is hid in the secret and inexplorable counsel of God; whose justice it behoves us rather to adore than to scrutinize.And he has mentioned vessels, as commonly signifying instruments; for whatever is done by all creatures, is, as it were, the ministration of divine power. For the best reason then are we, the faithful, called the vessels of mercy, whom the Lord uses as instruments for the manifestation of his mercy; and the reprobate are the vessels of wrath, because they serve to show forth the judgments of God.	The issue here is not so much that we do not know, nor can ever know, the cause of damnation. We have seen that damnation is the fruit of sin, as the Bible clearly teaches.  Calvin never taught otherwise.  For example his comments on John 3:19  (This is the condemnation etc.,) show this very clearly: "All think it harsh that they who do not believe in Christ should be devoted to destruction. That no man may ascribe his condemnation to Christ, he shows that every man ought to impute the blame to himself. The reason is, that unbelief is a testimony of a bad conscience; and hence it is evident that it is their own wickedness which hinders unbelievers from approaching to Christ. Some think that he points out here nothing more than the mark of condemnation; but, the design of Christ is, to restrain the wickedness of men, that they may not, according to their custom, dispute or argue with God, as if he treated them unjustly, when he punishes unbelief with eternal death. He shows that such a condemnation is just, and is not liable to any reproaches, not only because those men act wickedly, who prefer darkness to light, and refuse the light which is freely offered to them, but because that hatred of the light arises only from a mind that is wicked and conscious of its guilt."    What Calvin declares is inexplicable here (as far as human reasoning is concerned) is the reason why God chose to leave 'Sinner A' in his unbelief while granting faith to 'Sinner B' when both of them deserved nothing but wrath and damnation for sin. While I think you need to be exceedingly careful in saying that the vessels of wrath 'were made and formed for this end'  yet no school can escape the charge. Even to take the bare foreknowledge line of the Non Calvinist does not allow him to escape. There would be no damnation unless there was sin and  we are all agree that God purposely allowed the circumstances for sin to enter into the world.  Unless He was either a knave or a fool, then we must allow that He has His reasons for allowing this and those reasons cannot in any way compromise His own glory.
22. That he might also make known the riches of his glory,etc. I doubt not but the two particles kai ina, is an instance of a construction, where the first word is put last; (usteron pro teron) and that this clause may better unite with the former, I have rendered it, That he might also make known, etc. (Ut notas quoque faceret, etc.) It is the second reason which manifests the glory of God in the destruction of the reprobate, because the greatness of divine mercy towards the elect is hereby more clearly made known; for how do they differ from them except that they are delivered by the Lord from the same gulf of destruction? and this by no merit of their own, but through his gratuitous kindness. It cannot then be but that the infinite mercy of God towards the elect must appear increasingly worthy of praise, when we see how miserable are all they who escape not hiswrath.	Calvin here rightly points out that both there is no real difference between the elect and reprobate i.e. in and of themselves. Note that they are both headed to the same gulf of destruction (because both are equally guilty) but God has chosen to show His saving grace to the elect, while leaving the reprobate to their chosen sins.
The word glory, which is here twice mentioned, I consider to have been used for God’s mercy, a metonymy of effect for the cause; for his chief praise or glory is in acts of kindness. So in Ephesians 1:13, after having taught us, that we have been adopted to the praise of the glory of his grace, he adds, that we are sealed by the Spirit of promise unto the praise of his glory, the word grace being left out. He wished then to show, that the elect are instruments or vessels through whom God exercises his mercy, that through them he may glorify his name. Though in the second clause he asserts more expressly that it is God who prepares the elect for glory, as he had simply said before that the reprobate are vessels prepared for destruction; there is yet no doubt but that the preparation of both is connected with the secret counsel of God. Paul might have otherwise said, that the reprobate give up or cast themselves into destruction; but he intimates here, that before they are born they are destined to their lot.	Yes, indeed, Paul might have said 'that the reprobate give up or cast themselves into destruction' but He didn't in this particular passage as it is translated in our Authorised Version. It is true that the Greek text in v22 re: the reprobate may be equally translated "prepared themselves unto destruction"  and this is, at least, the emphasis that I am happier with. However, we must face the fact that the Holy Spirit deliberately left it ambiguous and that many, if not all, of the various versions reflect this and leave it pretty much as it stands in the AV.  However, Paul (followed by Calvin) taught elsewhere that man is the author of his own damnation e.g. Romans 2:5 where the impenitent hoard up for themselves wrath. Calvin rightly observes there: "5. But according to thy hardness, etc. When we become hardened against the admonitions of the Lord, impenitence follows; and they who arc not anxious about repentance openly provoke the Lord. This is a remarkable passage: we may hence learn what I have already referred to — that the ungodly not only accumulate for themselves daily a heavier weight of God’s judgments, as long as they live here, but that the gifts of God also, which they continually enjoy, shall increase their condemnation; for an account of them all will be required: and it will then be found, that it will be justly imputed to them as an extreme wickedness, that they had been made worse through God’s bounty, by which theyought surely to have been improved." However, this was not Paul's purpose in this particular passage, and therefore we cannot blame Calvin for keeping close to Paul's own thoughts.
24. Whom he also called, etc. From the reasoning which he has been hitherto carrying on respecting the freedom of divine election, two things follow, — that the grace of God is not so confined to the Jewish people that it does not also flow to other nations, and diffuse itself through the whole world, — and then, that it is not even so tied to the Jews that it comes without exception to all the children of Abraham according to the flesh; for if God’s election is based on his own good pleasure alone, wherever his will turns itself, there his election exists. Election being then established, the way is now in a manner prepared for him to proceed to those things which he designed to say respecting the calling of the Gentiles, and also respecting the rejection of the Jews; the first of which seemed strange for its novelty, and the other wholly unbecoming. As, however, the last had more in it to offend, he speaks in the first place of that which was less disliked. He says then, that the vessels of God’s mercy, whom he selects for the glory of his name, are taken from every people, from the Gentiles no less than from the Jews. But though in the relative whom the rule of grammar is not fully observed by Paul, yet his object was, by making as it were a transition, to subjoin that we are the vessels of God’s glory, who have been taken in part from the Jews and in part from the Gentiles; and he proves from the calling of God, that there is no difference between nations made in election. For if to be descended from the Gentiles was no hinderance that God should not call us, it is evident that the Gentiles are by no means to be excluded from the kingdom of God and the covenant of eternal salvation.	There are no, as far as I can see, any controversial remarks in these words of John Calvin.

Conclusion of the 4 part study: As far as these verses in Romans 9 are concerned, Calvin says nothing that should cause any Christian to blush. He faithfully follows Paul in his argument without deviating from either the words or the emphasis of the passage. There is more to these things than Romans 9, as can be seen from our quotes from elsewhere. Helpful pages on this site to help you evaluate the Doctrines of Grace may be found in our Calvinism Index page. We hope to extend our comments on what Calvin taught on Predestination and Reprobation with annotations such as have above. However, these studies take time. However, they will be linked from this page when complete.

* Part 1 concerns Romans 9:10-13  

* Part 2 concerns Romans 9:14-18  

* Part 3 concerns Romans 9:22-23 

THE END 

INDEXES:

* CALVINIST INDEX
* PROTESTANT INDEX
* CH SPURGEON INDEX
* EVANGELISM INDEX
* HERE AND THERE INDEX

predest3

John Calvin

 Note: I want you to stick with me on this important subject which will cover 4 posts overall.  Many who criticise Calvin on these things have never read his actual comments (usually following in what Spurgeon called the "imaginations of their own brain") or latch upon some isolated quote snatched from a third and biased source. In these posts, we will go back to the original source. 

JOHN CALVIN ON ROMANS 9 (Part 3)

 Did John Calvin teach double predestination? If so, what did he mean by it? Did Calvin condemn to Hell people who ought not to be there? Or (worse still) attribute such a thing to the One whose nature is Love? Read below for the answers to these important questions. First we will give the appropriate verses from Romans 9, then Calvin's comments in black in the left hand column with my analysis of Calvin's thought in dark blue in the right hand column. 

  

* Part 1 concerns Romans 9:10-13
* Part 2 concerns Romans 9:14-18  
* Part 4 concerns Romans 9:22-23)

 

SCRIPTURE: (Romans 9:19-21) Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

CALVIN'S COMMENTS	MY ANALYSIS
19. Thou wilt then say, etc. Here indeed the flesh especially storms, that is, when it hears that they who perish have been destined by the will of God to destruction. Hence the Apostle adopts again the words of an opponent; for he saw that the mouths of the ungodly could not be restrained from boldly clamouring against the righteousness of God: and he very fitly expresses their mind; for being not content with defending themselves, they make God guilty instead of themselves; and then, after having devolved on him the blame of their own condemnation, they become indignant against his great power. They are indeed constrained to yield; but they storm, because they cannot resist; and ascribing dominion to him, they in a manner charge him with tyranny. In the same manner the Sophists in their schools foolishly dispute on what they call his absolute justice, as though forgetful of his own righteousness, he would try the power of his authority by throwing all things into confusion. Thus then speak the ungodly in this passage, — “What cause has he to be angry with us? Since he has formed us such as we are, since he leads us at his will where he pleases, what else does he in destroying us but punish his own work in us? For it is not in our power to contend with him; how much soever we may resist, he will yet have the upper hand. Then unjust will be his judgment, if he condemns us; and unrestrainable is the power which he now employs towards us.” What does Paul say to these things?	This is one of the clearest statements yet as to where Calvin places the blame of the  condemnation of the reprobate. He accuses those who wonder how then can God find fault, of making God guilty instead of themselves and of devolving unto God the blame of their own condemnation. These are significant words and should not be lost in the overall picture.
20. But, O man! who art thou? etc. As it is a participle in Greek, we may read what follows in the present tense, who disputest, or contendest, or strivest in opposition to God; for it is expressed in Greek according to this meaning, — "Who art thou who enterest into a dispute with God?” But there is not much difference in the sense? In this first answer, he does nothing else but beat down impious blasphemy by an argument taken from the condition of man: he will presently subjoin another, by which hewill clear the righteousness of God from all blame.	Paul's first reply (according to Calvin) is to remind the objectors "their condition" i.e. men. We might further add that they are not only flesh and blood, but sinful flesh and blood at that.
It is indeed evident that no cause is adduced higher than the will of God. Since there was a ready answer, that the difference depends on just reasons, why did not Paul adopt such a brief reply? But he placed the will of God in the highest rank for this reason, — that it alone may suffice us for all other causes. No doubt, if the objection had been false, that God according to his own will rejects those whom he honors not with his favor, and chooses those whom he gratuitously loves, a refutation would not have been neglected by Paul. The ungodly object and say, that men are exempted from blame, if the will of God holds the first place in their salvation, or in their perdition. Does Paul deny this? Nay, by his answer he confirms it, that is, that God determines concerning men, as it seems good to him, and that, men in vain and madly rise up to contend with God; for he assigns, by his own right, whatever lot he pleases to what he forms. But they who say that Paul, wanting reason, had recourse to reproof, cast a grievous calumny on the Holy Spirit: for the things calculated to vindicate God’s justice, and ready at hand, he was at first unwilling’ to adduce, for they could not have been comprehended; yea, he so modifies his second reason, that he does not undertake a full defence, but in such a manner as to give a sufficient demonstration of God’s justice, if it be considered by us with devout humility and reverence.	Another significant statement from Calvin. He admits that Paul "does not undertake a full defence". Sometimes we might wish that Calvin had said certain things at certain times (such as he would say anyway elsewhere).  Well, he is in good company because Paul might have done so as well, but decided rather to stick to his guns on the Sovereignty of God matter.  Here, he rightly ties it in with God's justice and righteousness and allows that to be sufficient, but only if we approach the subject with considered and devout humility and reverence.
He reminds man of what is especially meet for him to remember, that is, of his own condition; as though he had said, — "Since thou art man, thou ownest thyself to be dust and ashes; why then doest thou contend with the Lord about that which thou art not able to understand?” In a word, the Apostle did not bring forward what might have been said, but what is suitable to our ignorance. Proud men clamour, because Paul, admitting that men are rejected or chosen by the secret counsel of God, alleges no cause; as though the Spirit of God were silent for want of reason, and not rather, that by his silence he reminds us, that a mystery which our minds cannot, comprehend ought to be reverently adored, and that he thus checks the wantonness of human curiosity. Let us then know, that God does for no other reason refrain from speaking, but that he sees that we cannot contain his immense wisdom in our small measure; and thus regarding ourweakness, he leads us to moderation and sobriety.	Again, Calvin points out that Paul (nay! the Spirit of God) refrained from bringing forth every last argument.  While Paul has alleged no cause, yet it is only here in this particular passage and (to remind you) Calvin did in v19 when he clearly alleged that man tried to shift the blame from himself to God.
Does what is formed? etc. We see that Paul dwells continually on this, — that the will of God, though its reason is hid from us, is to be counted just; for he shows that he is deprived of his right, if he is not at liberty to determine what he sees meet concerning his creatures. This seems unpleasant to the ears of many. There are also those who pretend that God is exposed to great reproach were such a power ascribed to him, as though they in their fastidiousness were better divines than Paul, who has laid down this as the rule of humility to the faithful, that they are to admire the sovereignty of God, and not to estimate it by their own judgment. But he represses this arrogance of contending with God by a most apt similitude, in which he seems to have alluded to Isaiah 45:9, rather than to Jeremiah 18:6; for nothing else is taught us by Jeremiah, than that Israel was in the hand of the Lord, so that he could for his sins wholly break him in pieces, as a potter the earthen vessel. But Isaiah ascends higher, “Woe to him,” he says, “who speaks against his maker;” that is, the pot that contends with the former of the clay; “shall the clay say to its former, what doest thou?” etc. And surely there is no reason for a mortal man to think himself better than earthen vessel, when he compares himself with God. We are not however to be over-particular in applying this testimony to our present subject, since Paul only meant to allude to the words of the Prophet, in order that the similitude might have more weight.	Calvin here points out that Paul does not teach that the sovereignty of God has no reason, but that the reason is hidden  from us and counted just. Of course, the issue here is not why the sinner is condemned. The Bible teaches us that  condemnation is the result of sin. The issue is why God chose to save some sinners and leave the rest. That's where it starts to get deep. Furthermore Calvin sees that Jeremiah 18:6 taught that the hand of the Lord could break Israel "for his sins" but points out that Paul chose to go  higher and root his answer in the sovereignty of God allusion from Isaiah 45:9
21. Has not the worker of the clay? etc. The reason why what is formed ought not to contend with its former, is, that the former does nothing but what he has a right to do. By the word power, he means not that the maker has strength to do according to his will, but that this privilege rightly and justly belongs to him. For he intends not to claim for God any arbitrarypower but what ought to be justly ascribed to him.	More significant words from Calvin. Calvin does not hold that God has arbitrary power and nothing else, but what He has(and exercises) is always just.
And further, bear this in mind, — that as the potter takes away nothing from the clay, whatever form he may give it; so God takes away nothing from man, in whatever condition he may create him. Only this is to be remembered, that God is deprived of a portion of his honor, except such an authority over men be conceded to him as to constitute him the arbitrator of life and death.	More significant words. Just as the potter takes nothing away from the clay, neither does God take anything away from man. Let us not think that the reprobate loses any rights that he should have, much less any righteousness. God deals with the human race as sinners and reserves to Himself to justly arbitrate (see previous paragraph) over the matters of life and death i.e. God is the Supreme Judge - the One to Whom pertains all the matters of life.

 * Part 1 concerns Romans 9:10-13 
 * Part 2 concerns Romans 9:14-18  
 * Part 4 concerns Romans 9:22-23

THE END   

* PROTESTANT INDEX 
* CALVINISM INDEX 
* CH SPURGEON INDEX  
* EVANGELISM INDEX  
* HERE AND THERE INDEX

predest2

John Calvin

Note: I want you to stick with me on this important subject which will cover 4 posts overall.  Many who criticise Calvin on these things have never read his actual comments (usually following in what Spurgeon called the "imaginations of their own brain") or latch upon some isolated quote snatched from a third and biased source. In these posts, we will go back to the original source. 

 Did John Calvin teach double predestination? If so, what did he mean by it? Did Calvin condemn to Hell people who ought not to be there? Or (worse still) attribute such a thing to the One whose nature is Love? Read below for the answers to these important questions. First we will give the appropriate verses from Romans 9, then Calvin's comments in black in the left hand column with my analysis of Calvin's thought in dark blue in the right hand column.

JOHN CALVIN ON ROMANS 9 (Part 2)

Did John Calvin teach double predestination? If so, what did he mean by it? Did Calvin condemn to Hell people who ought not to be there? Or (worse still) attribute such a thing to the One who is Love? Read below for the answers to these important questions. First we will give the appropriate verses from Romans 9, then Calvin's comments in the left hand column with my analysis of Calvin's thought in the right hand column.

* Part 1 concerns Romans 9:10-13

* Part 3 concerns Romans 9:19-21

* Part 4 concerns Romans 9:22-24

SCRIPTURE: (Romans 9:14-18) What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

PART ONE: JOHN CALVIN'S COMMENTS ON ROMANS 9:14-18	ANALYSIS OF CALVIN'S COMMENTS
What then shall we say? etc. The flesh cannot hear of this wisdom of God without being instantly disturbed by numberless questions, and without attempting in a manner to call God to an account. We hence find that the Apostle, whenever he treats of some high mystery, obviates the many absurdities by which he knew the minds of men would be otherwise possessed; for when men hear anything of what Scripture teaches respecting predestination, they are especially entangled with very many impediments. The predestination of God is indeed in reality a labyrinth, from which the mind of man can by no means extricate itself: but so unreasonable is the curiosity of man, that the more perilous the examination of a subject is, the more boldly he proceeds; so that when predestination is discussed, as he cannot restrain himself within due limits, he immediately, through his rashness, plunges himself, as it were, into the depth of the sea. What remedy then is there for the godly? Must they avoid every thought of predestination? By no means: for as the Holy Spirit has taught us nothing but what it behoves us to know, the knowledge of this would no doubt be useful, provided it be confined to the word of God. Let this then be our sacred rule, to seek to know nothing concerning it, except what Scripture teaches us: when the Lord closes his holy mouth, let us also stop the way,that we may not go farther. But as we are men, to whom foolish questions naturally occur, let us hear from Paul how they are to be met.	As Calvin approaches this most delicate subject, he gives a number of wise and necessary cautions. We must refrain from calling God to account and also restrain ourselves from going further than what has been revealed to us. No one, in their right mind, could argue with Calvin here. Of course, it may be raised as to whether or not Calvin heeded his own words, but nevertheless,  his warning words cannot be quibbled with. As he candidly admits on behalf of us all: We are men to whom foolish questions naturally occur.
Is there unrighteousness with God? Monstrous surely is the madness of the human mind, that it is more disposed to charge God with unrighteousness than to blame itself for blindness. Paul indeed had no wish to go out of his way to find out things by which he might confound his readers; but he took up as it were from what was common the wicked suggestion, which immediately enters the minds of many, when they hear that God determines respecting every individual according to his own will. It is indeed, as the flesh imagines, a kind of injustice, that God should pass by one and show regard to another.	Calvin nails the problem right on the head here in a few well chosen words. We tend to rubbish what we do not understand. The blindness is ours, but we are apt to charge God with unrighteousness. Yet what is the action that man finds so offensive? It is this: That God willed to pass some sinful individuals by and save others.  As before, this crib would only be relevant if God was obliged to save any or, deciding to save some, was obliged to save all. Which (as said) cannot be  if grace is to remain grace. Grace cannot be put under any obligation, otherwise grace is no more grace. The objection therefore must be overruled.
In order to remove this difficulty, Paul divides his subject into two parts; in the, former of which he speaks of the elect, and in the latter of the reprobate; and in the one he would have us to contemplate the mercy of God, and in the other to acknowledge his righteous judgment. His first reply is, that the thought that there is injustice with God deserves to be abhorred, and then he shows that with regard to the two parties, there can be none.	There can be no injustice in regards to the judgment of the reprobate (the most controversial of the two parties) because the judgment will be acknowledged to be righteous. It cannot be righteous judgment, especially as it concerns the casting of the reprobate into Hell, unless it be for sin. Calvin has never said anything else.
But before we proceed further, we may observe that this very objection clearly proves, that inasmuch as God elects some and passes by others, the cause is not to be found in anything else but in his own purpose; for if the difference had been based on works, Paul would have to no purpose mentioned this question respecting the unrighteousness of God, no suspicion could have been entertained concerning it if God dealt with every one according to his merit. It may also, in the second place, be noticed, that though he saw that this doctrine could not be touched without exciting instant clamours and dreadful blasphemies, he yet freely and openly brought it forward; nay, he does not conceal how much occasion for murmuring and clamour is given to us, when we hear that before men are born their lot is assigned to each by the secret will of God; and yet, notwithstanding all this, he proceeds, and without any subterfuges, declares what he had learned from the Holy Spirit. It hence follows, that their fancies are by no means to be endured, who aim to appear wiser than the Holy Spirit, in removing and pacifying offences. That they may not criminate God, they ought honestly to confess that the salvation or the perdition of men depends on his free election. Were they to restrain their minds from unholy curiosity, and to bridle their tongues from immoderate liberty, their modesty and sobriety would be deserving of approbation; but to put a restraint on the Holy Spirit and on Paul, what audacity it is! Let then such magnanimity ever prevail in the Church of God, as that godly teachers may not be ashamed to make an honest profession of the true doctrine, however hated it may be, and also to refute whatever calumnies the ungodly may bring forward.	OK, there are two phrases here which may raise eyebrows, but only if they are taken out of the overall passage and allowed to stand on their own without any comment. The first is that the cause of some being elected and others passed by lies in nothing else than God's own purpose. Yet (as we have already seen) this does not treat about the cause of condemnation, (which is always sin) but why one guilty sinner is spared while another is left to reap the consequences of his sins. The second statement  that might cause concern is that "the salvation or the perdition of men depends on his free election." The use of the word perdition (as opposed to preterition i.e. passing by) cannot be allowed to stand uncommented upon. If this is all that Calvin ever wrote, then we would be justified in thinking that he attributes the damnation of the sinner solely to God's will, as if God was damning people in hell for the sheer fun of it. But we havealready seen that Calvin wrote again and again, that the sinnerdeserves to perish because of his own sin.  Evidently if God freely chooses to pass the sinner by ("men" = "sinful men") then the sinner will doubtless be lost. OTOH, if God chooses to have saving mercy, then the sinner will live. Therefore, by way of evangelistic application, let the sinner heed Calvin's words elsewhere: "Necessity prompts us to seek God’s assistance; but we ought chiefly to remember that God is sought at a seasonable time, when of his own accord he advances to meet us; for in vain shall indolent and sluggish persons lament that they had been deprived of that grace which they rejected. "(Comments on Isaiah 55:6) Calvin takes  this thought up again in v16 i.e. that the sinner should not sit back and perish.
15. For he saith to Moses, etc. With regard to the elect, God cannot be charged with any unrighteousness; for according to his good pleasure he favors them with mercy: and yet even in this case the flesh finds reasons for murmuring, for it cannot concede to God the right of showing favor to one and not to another, except the cause be made evident. As then it seems unreasonable that some should without merit be preferred to others, the petulancy of men quarrels with God, as though he deferred to persons more than what is right. Let us now see how Paul defends the righteousness of God. In the first place, he does by no means conceal or hide what he saw would be disliked, but proceeds to maintain it with inflexible firmness. And in the second place, he labours not to seek out reasons to soften its asperity, but considers it enough to check vile barkings by the testimonies of Scripture. It may indeed appear a frigid defence that God is not unjust, because he is merciful to whom he pleases; but as God regards his own authority alone as abundantly sufficient, so that he needs the defence of none, Paul thought it enough to appoint him the vindicator of his own right. Now Paul brings forward here the answer which Moses received from the Lord, when he prayed for the salvation of the whole people, “I will show mercy,” was God’s answer, “on whom I will show mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” By this oracle the Lord declared that he is a debtor to none of mankind, and that whatever he gives is a gratuitous benefit, and then that his kindness is free, so that he can confer it on whom he pleases; and lastly, that no cause higher than his own will can be thought of, why he does good and shows favor to some men but not to all. The words indeed mean as much as though he had said, “From him to whom I have once purposed to show mercy, I will never take it away; and with perpetual kindness will I follow him to whom I have determined to be kind.”And thus he assigns the highest reason for imparting grace, even his own voluntary purpose, and also intimates that he has designed his mercy peculiarly for some; for it is a way of speaking which excludes all outward causes, as when we claim to ourselves the free power of acting, we say, “I will do what I mean to do.” The relative pronoun also expressly intimates, that mercy is not to all indiscriminately. His freedom is taken away from God, when his election is bound to external causes.The only true cause of salvation is expressed in the two words used by Moses. The first is chenen, which means to favor or to show kindness freely and bountifully; the other is  rechem, which is to be treated with mercy. Thus is confirmed what Paul intended, that the mercy of God, being gratuitous, is under no restraint, but turns wherever it,pleases.	There is little here with which any (apart from Pharisees) might quibble since it concerns the righteousness of God in saving the elect. Certainly no Evangelical (Calvinist or otherwise) will quibble. Yet the non Calvinists will probably be offended in the fact that Calvin attacks the commonly held doctrine of freewill in these paragraphs.  When you get down to it, sooner or later, the nonCalvinist must confess that the main difference between him and thereprobate lies not ultimately in the mercy of God (which he argues isthe same for all) but in his own decision. He decided and the reprobate didn't. He believes that his positive decision is the condition of his election i.e. No faith = no election. However, in contradistinction, the Calvinist argues that No election = no faith since faith is the fruit of election. Calvin here roots electing mercy solely in God's free will rather than that which is supposed to reside in sinful man. Herein lies a fundamental difference between Calvinists and non Calvinists, even within the Evangelical family.
16. It is not then of him who wills, etc. From the testimony adduced he draws this inference, that beyond all controversy our election is not to be ascribed to our diligence, nor to our striving, nor to our efforts, but that it is wholly to be referred to the counsel of God. That none of you may think that they who are elected are elected because they are deserving, or because they had in any way procured for themselves the favor of God, or, in short, because they had in them a particle of worthiness by which God might be moved, take, simply this view of the matter, that it is neither by our will nor efforts, (for he has put running for striving or endeavour,) that we are counted among the elect, but that it wholly depends on the divine goodness, which of itself chooses those who neither will, nor strive, nor even think of such a thing’. And they who reason from this passage, that there is in us some power to strive, but that it effects nothing of itself unless assisted by God’s mercy, maintain what is absurd; for the Apostle shows not what is in us, but excludes all our efforts. It is therefore a mere sophistry to say that we will and run, because Paul denies that it is of him who wills or runs, since he meant nothing else than that neither willing nor running can do anything.	Calvin treats here the cause of election unto life and not the cause of damnation, so there is little to explain here. There is, however, is Paul's words a refutation that election is according to man's will since this is plainly denied.
They are, however, to be condemned who remain secure and idle on the pretence of giving place to the grace of God; for though nothing is done by their own striving, yet that effort which is influenced by God is not ineffectual. These things, then, are not said that we may quench the Spirit of God, while kindling sparks within us, by our waywardness and sloth; but that we may understand that everything we have is from him, and that we may hence learn to ask all things of him, to hope for all things from him, and to ascribe all things to him, while we are prosecuting the work of our salvation with fear and trembling.	Calvin closes up a loophole here that prevents sinners from sitting back and waiting for the grace of God that alone can save them. Let the sinner seek the Lord and cry for mercy, for such seeking will be proved to be effectual unto salvation. Here is Evangelistic Calvinism at its best, promoting both God's sovereignty and man's responsibility.
Pelagius has attempted by another sophistical and worthless cavil to evade this declaration of Paul, that it is not only of him who wills and runs, because the mercy of God assists. But Augustine, not less solidly than acutely, thus refuted him, “If the will of man is denied to be the cause of election, because it is not the sole cause, but only in part; so also we may say that it is not of mercy but of him who wills and runs, for where there is a mutual co-operation, there ought to be a reciprocal commendation: but unquestionably the latter sentiment falls through its own absurdity.” Let us then feel assured that the salvation of those whom God is pleased to save, is thus ascribed to his mercy, that nothing may remain to the contrivance of man.	Calvin here brings in the wise comments of Augustine to refute the freewill teaching. It has to be said that these arguments are logical if we would attribute our election to our freewill.
Nor is there much more colour for what some advance, who think that these things are said in the person of the ungodly; for how can it be right to turn passages of Scripture in which the justice of God is asserted, for the purpose of reproaching him with tyranny? and then is it probable that Paul, when the refutation was at hand and easy, would have suffered the Scripture to be treated with gross mockery? But such subterfuges have they laid hold on, who absurdly measured this incomparable mystery of God by their own judgment. To their delicate and tender ears this doctrine was more grating than that they could think it worthy of an Apostle. But they ought rather to have bent their own stubbornness to the obedience of the Spirit, that they might not surrender themselves up to their gross inventions.	The point here is hermeneutical more than anything else. We cannot suppose that Paul is articulating the arguments of the ungodly for them. Note again: It is a reproach to charge God with being a tyrant. This could not be if God damned men without any due regard for their sin. Calvin continuously asserts this fundamental truth.
17. For the Scripture saith, etc. He comes now to the second part, the rejection of the ungodly, and as there seems to be something more unreasonable in this, he endeavours to make it more fully evident, how God, in rejecting whom he wills, is not only irreprehensible, but also wonderful in his wisdom and justice. He then takes his proof from Exodus 9:16, where the Lord declares that it was he who raised up Pharaoh for this end, that while he obstinately strove to resist the power of God, he might, by being overcome and subdued, afford a proof how invincible the arm of God is to bear which, much less to resist it, no human power is able. See then the example which the Lord designed to exhibit in Pharaoh!	This is one of the more controversial  verses in Romans 9. Note here how Calvin indicts Pharaoh for obstinately striving to resist the power of God. We should never read the story or study this doctrine that takes Pharaoh as its example thinking that  the Egyptian King was an innocent pawn. He was guilty of the sins that must be considered as the ultimate cause of his damnation. Had he not have resisted God, then he would not have perished. As simple as that!
There are here two things to be considered, — the predestination of Pharaoh to ruin, which is to be referred to the past and yet the hidden counsel of God, — and then, the design of this, which was to make known the name of God; and on this does Paul primarily dwell: for if this hardening was of such a kind, that on its account the name of God deserved to be made known, it is an impious thing, according to evidence derived from the contrary effect, to charge him with any unrighteousness.	Please notice that Calvin but "refers" the predestination of Pharaoh to ruin to the past and yet hidden counsel of God. John Calvin never denies that the ultimate cause of Pharaoh's damnation is sin. The design of God in relation to it is that God was willing to use it to make known His mighty power.  We worship One who can righteously take even evil men and their deeds and use them for their glory. The greatest example of this is, of course, the Cross of Calvary: Acts 2:23/4:27-28
But as many interpreters, striving to modify this passage, pervert it,, we must first observe, that for the word, “I have raised,” or stirred up, (excitavi,) the Hebrew is, “I have appointed,” (constitui,) by which it appears, that God, designing to show, that the contumacy of Pharaoh would not prevent him to deliver his people, not only affirms, that his fury had been foreseen by him, and that he had prepared means for restraining it, but that he had also thus designedly ordained it, and indeed for this end, — that he might exhibit a more illustrious evidence of his own power. Absurdly then do some render this passage, — that Pharaoh was preserved for a time; for his beginning is what is spoken of here. For, seeing many things from various quarters happen to men, which retard their purposes and impede the course of their actions, God says, that Pharaoh proceeded from him, and that his condition was by himself assigned to him: and with this view agrees the verb, I have raised up. But that no one may imagine, that Pharaoh was moved from above by some kind of common and indiscriminate impulse, to rush headlong into that madness the special cause, or end, is mentioned; as though it had been said, — that God not only knew what Pharaoh would do, but also designedly ordained him for this purpose. It hence follows, that it is in vain to contend with him, as though he were bound to give a reason; for he of himself comes forth before us, and anticipates the objection, by declaring, that the reprobate, through whom he designs his name to be made known, proceed from the hidden fountain of his providence.	God not only restrained Pharaoh's hatred, but actually channeled it for His own glory. Having done it, God always purposed to do it. Note with great care, how Calvin denies that the madness into which Pharaoh rushed headlong was because of some movement from above i.e. from God. God did not inject some madness into Pharaoh's heart or brain.  It was already there because of sin. God justly utilised it for His glory, before causing Pharaoh to reap the consequences of his sins.
18. To whom he wills then he showeth mercy, etc. Here follows the conclusion of both parts; which can by no means be understood as being the language of any other but of the Apostle; for he immediately addresses an opponent, and adduces what might have been objected by an opposite party. There is therefore no doubt but that Paul, as we have already reminded you, speaks these things in his own person, namely, that God, according to his own will, favors with mercy them whom he pleases, and unsheathes the severity of his judgment against whomsoever it seemeth him good. That our mind may be satisfied with the difference which exists between the elect and the reprobate, and may not inquire for any cause higher than the divine will, his purpose was to convince us of this — that it seems good to God to illuminate some that they may be saved, and to blind others that they may perish: for we ought particularly to notice these words, to whom he wills, and, whom he wills: beyond this he allows us not to proceed. But the word hardens, when applied to God in Scripture, means not only permission, (as some washy moderators would have it,) but also the operation of the wrath of God: for all those external things, which lead to the blinding of the reprobate, are the, instruments of his wrath; and Satan himself, who works inwardly with great power, is so far his minister, that he acts not, but by his command. Then that frivolous evasion, which the schoolmen have recourse to respecting foreknowledge, falls to the ground: for Paul teaches us, that the ruin of the wicked is not only foreseen by the Lord, but also ordained by his counsel and his will; and Solomon teaches ‘as the same thing, — that not only the destruction of the wicked is foreknown, but that the wicked themselves have been created for this very end — that they may perish. (Proverbs 16:4.)	Again, Calvin in his use of words like "judgment" linked with words like "wicked" show that any condemnation is judicial in its nature. Note that Calvin speaks of "no higher cause" than the Divine will in these matters. This is obviously not inconsistent with the thought of  "no other cause" since Calvin himself  (as already quoted in the 1st part of this series) states: "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) Calvin is but establishing the fact that God has the last say in any matter. Calvin never denied that God "permitted" men to harden their own hearts, but he always qualifies the permission with the word "mere" or "only."  God never stood by as a mere spectator, but when the sinner was allowed to harden his own heart (as Calvin admits that they do) then it was all within the judicial processes of God. God has a righteous purpose even in the hardening of the wicked reprobate. It is certainly High Octane stuff when Calvin says that the wicked were created for this very end i.e. that they may perish. My position on the matter is that God created the wicked so that they might glorify Him and enjoy Him for ever (ala our Shorter Catechism Q.1) and that they miserably failed. However, Calvin (at least at this point in his commentary) does not go down that particular road. One thing to be said in His favour here, is that we get closer to that great bugbear that concerns all Christians of whatever school i.e. Why did God permit sin and evil to exist in their first place? No matter what our answer may be about man's responsibility, our Holy God freely and wisely and justly chose to bring about conditions that allowed (to say the very least) the possibility of sin entering into the world.

* Part 1 concerns Romans 9:10-13

* Part 3 concerns Romans 9:19-21

* Part 4 concerns Romans 9:22-24
 
THE END 

ALL INDEXES:

* PROTESTANT INDEX 
* CALVINISM INDEX 
* CH SPURGEON INDEX  
* EVANGELISM INDEX  
* HERE AND THERE INDEX