Any comment on the contents of this page? Email: colin.maxwell@fpcmission.org

FREE PRESBYTERIAN  ISSUES -- GOSPEL ISSUES -- PROTESTANT ISSUES -- EVANGELISM ISSUES -- CALVINISM ISSUES -- C.H. SPURGEON INDEX -- SERMON NOTES -- MAIN

JOHN CALVIN'S SO CALLED
CHILLING QUOTES THAWED OUT
Did this man say that infants a span long are in hell?

Note:  There is ongoing email correspondence with the original author from the Arminian side. This will necessitate some changes to be made to this page later. Suffice for the moment to say that he accepts particularly that he had misinterpreted on the second quote and apologises to his readers for some sloppiness. Since we are all more than well capable of erring in such a way, we should be careful not to judge, lest we too be judged with the judgement that we mete out to others. As we say, the matter is ongoing...

As any one examining this site will quickly observe, I am on no Jihad against non Calvinist Christians or against those who designate themselves as Arminians. By and large, any controversy in these Calvinist pages are defensive in nature, seeking to undo misunderstandings and answer objections, as well as to positively teach the truth concerning Calvinism.


In keeping with this self imposed ethos, I feel I must answer these quotes (reproduced in the box below) which the Evangelical Arminian Society have attributed to John Calvin. (Linked for the sake of accuracy.)

Here are some absolutely chilling quotes of John Calvin. It is hard to believe any Christian can believe such things:

John Calvin writes: “When God prefers some to others, choosing some and passing others by, the difference does not depend on human dignity or indignity. It is therefore wrong to say that the reprobate are worthy of eternal destruction.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, pp.120-121)

Calvin adds: “If what I teach is true, that those who perish are destined to death by the eternal good pleasure of God though the reason does not appear, then they are not found but made worthy of destruction.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.121)

John Calvin writes: “Solomon also teaches us that not only was the destruction of the ungodly foreknown, but the ungodly themselves have been created for the specific purpose of perishing (Prov. 16:4).” (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: Romans and Thessalonians, pp.207-208)

Wow.


Let's examine these claims, one by one.  My comments in red on the right hand column.

Some Chilling Quotes of John Calvin

This is the title of the original page, setting out the stall very clearly indeed i.e. the quotes belong to John Calvin and they are chilling in their nature.
Here are some absolutely chilling quotes of John Calvin. It is hard to believe any Christian can believe such things: A repeat of the above title, only ratched up further by the word absolutely which, to say the least, leaves very little wriggle room. Heightened further by the opinion that it is hard to believe that any Christian could believe such things. Thus Calvin has not only been charged, but found guilty and condemned of the charges that are brought.
John Calvin writes: “When God prefers some to others, choosing some and passing others by, the difference does not depend on human dignity or indignity. It is therefore wrong to say that the reprobate are worthy of eternal destruction.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, pp.120-121)
There is an online edition of 
Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God here with slightly different page numbering. The whole paragraph (giving the all important context) reads as follows:

"There is another objection of the same chaff which Pighius raises against my following published sentiments: " I deny that the reprobate are distinguished and separated from the elect by any respect of God to the merits of the latter; because the grace of God makes them worthy of His adoption of them, it does not find them worthy" (as Augustine frequently remarks). In another place I thus express myself: " I deny that any injury is done to the reprobate by their reprobation, because they deserve eternal destruction." Here Pighius spreads out his wings in tumultuous exultation, noisily exclaiming that I neither understand myself nor my own sentiments, nor at all remember what I have myself before said. But so far am I from thinking it necessary to spend many words in my defence, that I can hardly bring myself to employ even a few words for that object. I will observe, then, that when God prefers some to others, when He chooses some and passes by others, the difference is not made on the ground of worthiness or unworthiness, either in the one or in the other. Therefore, it is false to say that the reprobate are worthy [of] eternal destruction. If, therefore, in the former case, there is no comparison of men with each other, nor any connection of worthiness with the reward of eternal life; in the latter case, there is certainly no proof that the condition of all men is equal with reference to the election of God. Add to this, that Augustine, having asserted in one part of his writings that no man ever failed of salvation who was worthy of it, qualifies this expression in his subsequent recapitulations, carefully excluding all idea of works and referring all acceptable worthiness to the free grace calling of God." (p123-124) 

Note: Calvin is on record, both in this paragraph and in many other places, of stating that the reprobate deserve eternal destruction. I underline the appropriate words above. I add his very significant words from the Institutes (3:23:8) 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)

Does Calvin contradict himself here in the paragraph in question? He does not think so, claiming that he can hardly bring himself to bring even a few words to answer the charge.

The context here is not so much whether the reprobates are judicially guilty and deserving of eternal destruction, but rather: Is sin the reason why some are passed by in the electing purposes of God while others are chosen to be saved? And so, in this context,  the answer is a resounding "No!" If sin were the reason, then we would conclude that those chosen where [i] either without any sin at all or [ii] less sinful than those passed by. Neither of these are true. Paul, who was chosen, was the chief of sinners (1 Timothy 1:15) The fact is that though we are all guilty and all deserving to be passed by and damned, yet God in His sovereign mercy chose some (a multitude that cannot be numbered) to be saved. If we are going to obligate God to decree to save all because He decrees to save some, then we cannot speak of salvation by grace, because  obligated and grace cannot appear in the same sentence. 


This shows the danger of the stand alone quote. It ignores the fact that Calvin did teach that the reprobate deserves eternal damnation, even though it appears in the very same paragraph. It also fails to recognise that the issue is not whether the reprobate should be in hell, but whether the reason why he was passed by when another was elected was because of sin.

Far from being absolutely chilling, this quote from Calvin (when put into context) only but warms  the heart  by magnifying the grace of God in salvation.  Which is why Calvin ends the paragraph with the quotation from Augustine
"referring all acceptable worthiness to the free grace calling of God." 
Calvin adds: “If what I teach is true, that those who perish are destined to death by the eternal good pleasure of God though the reason does not appear, then they are not found but made worthy of destruction.” (Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, p.121) In an amazing lack of Christian ethics, this quote has been edited and reconstructed to have these words fall from Calvin's mouth. When we go to the original, found in the online edition linked above on p124, we read the following:

"Pighius, however, still pushes on his violent opposition, alleging that if what I teach be true, that those who perish were ordained unto everlasting death by the eternal will of God, of which the reason is imperceptible to us, the persons so ordained are made worthy of everlasting death, not found so."

Far from being Calvin's quote, it is but Pighius's allegation. The compiler has completely guillotined the first part of the sentence, declined to use the customary dots (...) to denote missing words and captialized the "if" to make it the first word of the sentence. This is tampering with the evidence. Again, read the whole paragraph for yourself:

"Pighius, however, still pushes on his violent opposition, alleging that if what I teach be true, that those who perish were ordained unto everlasting death by the eternal will of God, of which the reason is imperceptible to us, the persons so ordained are made worthy of everlasting death, not found so. I reply that three things are here to be considered: 1. That the eternal predestination of God, by which He decreed, before the Fall of Adam, what should take place in the whole human race and in every individual thereof, was unalterably fixed and determined. 2. That Adam himself, on account of his departure from God, was deservedly appointed to eternal death. 3. And lastly, that in the person of Adam, thus fallen and lost, his whole future offspring were also eternally condemned; but so eternally condemned that God deems worthy the honour of His adoption all those whom He freely chose out of that future offspring. Of these mighty things I have neither dreamed any part, nor fabricated any part. Nor am I called upon, in the present instance, to prove each particular, for I consider that I have most effectually done that already. All I shall do is to wash off from myself the calumny with which my opponent has soiled me, when he says that these things can in no way be made to harmonise or consist with each other. Whereas, what I have ever invariably taught, and still teach at this day, is, that whenever election is the subject of discussion, the great point to be maintained, from first to last, is that all the reprobate are justly left under eternal death, because they died and were eternally condemned in Adam; also, that those perish justly who are by nature the children of wrath; and finally, that, therefore, no one can have cause to complain of the too great severity of God, seeing that all men bear, in themselves and in their individual persons, the guilt and desert of death eternal." 

Note how Calvin saw the opposition against him as being "violent" i.e. unjustified because untrue. He further declares that he has been soiled by his opponent's calumny. Not only did Pighius wrongly attack Calvin, but whoever truncated his unwarranted charge and forced it unto the lips of Calvin has done likewise. This underhand tactic will be deplored by all right thinking Christian people whether Calvinist or not.  

BTW: Note also, in relation to the context of the first quote, Calvin again puts the reason why men are eternally damned on the guilty sinner themselves as the last sentence of this paragraph clearly shows.

John Calvin writes: “Solomon also teaches us that not only was the destruction of the ungodly foreknown, but the ungodly themselves have been created for the specific purpose of perishing (Prov. 16:4).” (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: Romans and Thessalonians, pp.207-208) These comments appear in Calvin's commentary on Romans 9:18 (located here) The whole chapter is certainly High Octane stuff and Calvin doesn't flinch at any of its teaching. I think that Calvin's use of the words "the ungodly" should not be overlooked here. God damns none to hell but those who deserve to be there. Men are not to be viewed as some kind of neutral entities. The reality of the situation, as seen by the facts, is that God has not raised some of the spiritual dead from their sins, but left them (as they desired) to love their darkness rather than the light which alone is the cause of their condemnation (John 3:19).

Having said that, I personally think, that it is better when dealing with God's purpose for men is to go down the  route of the Calvinistic Shorter Catechism which asks the simple question: "What is man's chief end man?" and then gives the very notable reply: "Man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him for ever." Thus if you were to ask me the question, "Why were wicked men specifically created?" I would reply: "They were specifically created to glorify God and enjoy Him for ever...and they signally failed." IOW: I would put the emphasis of their destruction on their responsibility.

Please note also, that this question is linked to another question which causes problems to Evangelical Christians of all schools i.e. Why did God permit sin to enter into the world at all?  None of us hold that God either created sin  or is the author of sin (See here for Calvin's position) yet by giving a law (Not to eat of the three of knowledge of good and evil) we cannot deny that He created the circumstances for the possibility of sin coming into the world. Furthermore, He could, at the very least, foresee it happening. Yet He  pushed ahead and for whatever reason He did so, we know that it was for absolute holy and wise reasons. If He declines to share these reasons with us, then we cannot complain one iota.
Wow. Wow indeed.

The first wow! would not be so awful if put into proper context. Remember, you do not need to agree with Calvin, but to lift something out of context helps no one.
The second wow! is based on a tampering of the evidence to incriminate one of something to which he can honestly (and did) plead "Not guilty!"
The third wow! is not entirely justified when we introduce the related issue of why God allowed sin to enter into the world etc., 

Update: Richard Coordes (original writer) has opened a page on his blog dealing with this matter. Those who wish to follow it through should go there as I cannot reproduce all that is written. My almost generic reply reads as follows:

Hi Richard,

I appreciate you taking time to answer my email to you concerning these “chilling quotes” which have been attributed to John Calvin. I appreciate that as Calvinists (me) and Arminians (you) that we will probably not agree at the end of all this, but I think it is important that nothing be attributed to anyone which they do not actually believe and would repudiate. I am glad that movement has been made towards that position.

I do not propose to go through all your quotes here and check their context etc., simply because while there is room in my busy schedule (I am a full time Christian evangelist) for my internet site, yet spending hours debating with fellow Christians on the matter of God’s decree hardly constitutes a wise use of time. Especially seeing that I have already given some time to this subject in recent days. We all know that a paragraph that barely takes a minute to read can often take an hour to finally compile. I forbear giving any quotes from Calvin for the sake time and space. It would not be hard to supply them if challenged.

Suffice to say this:

1) Calvin freely admitted that he did not have all the answers concerning these things inasmuch as God has not revealed everything to us. However, he rightly says, we should remember that whatever reason God has for positively ordaining matters or allowing them to come to pass cannot contradict His attributes of justice, love and wisdom etc.,

2) Calvin never objected to the concept of God allowing things to come to pass. What he did object to was the concept of “bare permission” as if God simply stood by either helpless or indifferent. It is true that Calvin does attribute the fall of man to the Divine will, but this is simply looking on the event as a historian. Since God created the circumstances whereby sin could come into the world (i.e. by making a law) and allowed that law to be broken (when He could have prevented it as He did on other occasions e.g. withholding Abimelech from sinning against Sarah in Genesis 20: 7) then we must conclude that God (for wise and holy reasons best known to Himself) had a purpose in Adam falling.

3) Calvin never taught that God was the author or cause of sin, but admitted freely that God used the sins of men for His own sinless glory. The Bible abounds with many such examples, not least the Cross of Calvary where wicked hands did what God foreordained should be done. God’s holy will and man’s sinful deeds may indeed meet in one particular act (whether the Fall or the Cross) but they come from entirely different angles and they are done for entirely different reasons and therefore are either to be justified or condemned.

4) Calvin never lost sight of the fact that man is a free agent in all these things and therefore is culpable. Your quote above along with your argument makes that clear.

I think you should rest content with Calvin’s position whereby we do not try to reconcile what we cannot fully understand. Although Calvin (and those of us who tend to agree with him as long as he agrees with Scripture) puts himself in the front line with his views, yet those who wobble a bit only put off the inevitable. An atheist, for example, will pose the same questions to us both. Unless the Arminian is willing to say that God watched His plans go horribly wrong and decided not to get involved and let man take over the running of the show, then he is more or less forced into the Calvinist position. To say that God had a purpose that He was/is working out brings you into the Calvinistic camp, whether you want this label or otherwise.

I am happy enough to run with Calvin’s view. It is only gloomy to those who want to hold unto their sins and refuse the immense joy and privilege of worshipping their Creator against Whom (to quote the inspired sage) there is no counsel, understanding or wisdom (Proverbs 20:31)

Regards,


There are many helpful pages on this site dealing with the Calvinist controversy, including those below:

* The Calvinism Debate simplified  - Getting quickly to the main issues
* What Calvinists do and don't believe

Avoiding confusion - what non Calvinists should know about Calvinism
* Some advice for those who take it upon themselves to criticise Calvinism
* Taking on the Calvinists  - Inside help
* A word for those non Calvinists who think that Calvinism is a damnable heresy
* Did John Calvin really teach that there are babies a span long in hell?


FREE PRESBYTERIAN  ISSUES -- GOSPEL ISSUES -- PROTESTANT ISSUES -- EVANGELISM ISSUES -- CALVINISM ISSUES -- C.H. SPURGEON INDEX -- SERMON NOTES -- MAIN PAGE