| 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.
|