Parchment and Pen » John Calvin: Love Him or Hate Him?

John Calvin: Love Him or Hate Him?

I am working on a manuscript designed to recognize John Calvin’s 500th birthday coming up July 10, 2009. Its a historical and contemporary study of opinions on this most influential man.

As a Reformed Christian, I owe a lot to Old JC, but the honest truth is: I have a love-hate relationship with the man. For the most part, he was a kindly gentleman who did a lot of good things. But he also set the stage for a theological worldview that many people perceive to be far more negative and mean-spirited than the Way of Christ permits.

Now, I know many of you will say that the stage was set by Paul, by Augustine, by Luther and others. But Calvin had a huge role in promoting and disseminating the Calvinist theological worldview.

And, why didnt he step in and stop the burning of Servetus? Sure, he was a man of his times. He lived and died before the Enlightenment. But so did Katherine Zell who raged against those at Geneva who burned the poor Servetus at the stake. Today none of us would give a nod to aid in the burning of a heretic. Its hard to comprehend the mind of one who would. Its hard for many of us to comprehend John Calvin.

So, Im asking you, my readers, to weigh in on this. Do you love him or hate him? I want to collect some wonderfully quotable sentences and paragraphsnot pages of materialthat I can include in my manuscript (with your permission, of course). I would also like you to share any quotes or opinions of him you have from others, particularly historical or contemporary folks whose names wed recognize. Contact relatives and friendsmaybe your pastor or priest. Invite them to weigh in on this controversial topic.

Calvin was anything but a funny guy, but please share any humor that comes to mind. I tried my hand at this in an effort to give a touch of humor to that awful ordeal: sizzling Servetus at the steakwell, medium, or rare? No, I wont stoop that low. Rather, I paraphrase a little nursery rhyme that begins with an allusion to the Heidelberg Catechism that all good Calvinists study from childhood:

Heidel diddle diddle,
The catechism and the Bible
Old Calvin jumped over the flames.
Servetus scowled to see such sport,
Simultaneously dissed and mooned!

Help me out, you all. Give me some good stuff on JC.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Print This Post

41 Responses to “John Calvin: Love Him or Hate Him?”

Kara Kittle on 01 Mar 2009 at 5:36 pm #

Uhm, I really don’t know John Calvin personally. But when I get to heaven I will tell him I intended on commenting on this blog thingy…(considering in his day he was probably one of the few bloggers in Christendom), and I wanted to say something good but not knowing him..made it difficult.

(hint, this is all intended as snarkiness as I really never studied Calvinism and truly don’t know much about it…me being a Pentecostal and all…lol)
Jonathan CHM on 03 Aug 2009 at 9:16 pm #

To me, there is no point for us to blame anybody since it is too late that Charismatic practice has become very common nowadays. The only thing we should do is to educate Christians to ensure that they beware of the danger of Charismatic practice.

Many people in the past have false thinking about miracles since they thought that only God could perform miracles and it turns up that all non-Charismatic pastors that were touched by Charismatic people had strange feeling about something cold or warm substance passing through their bodies and they strongly believe that this must be the work of God since they support that only God could perform miracles and this causes them to be one by one to be converted to Charismatic Churches from different Christian denominations.

Thus, the wide spread of Charismatic practice is partly the result of misinterpretation of the Scripture.

Only the right theological institutes stand firmly to resist and to prevent the wide-spread of false teachings.

The false theological insistutes that allow all kinds of teachings, such as, cults, Charismatic practice and etc., would not be acceptable to God.
cheryl u on 03 Aug 2009 at 11:10 pm #

Jonathan,

Quick question–what does your comment have to do with Calvin? I am at a complete loss here.
Michael on 04 Aug 2009 at 12:36 am #

Hmm equating all Charismatics to cultists??? That is extreme in the absurd (and I’m not a charismatic for the record) and as cheryl said has nothing to do with the subject of the post. However in the interest of education I would suggest reading the series of posts on this blog concerning the issues raised by the charismatic movement.
Jonathan CHM on 04 Aug 2009 at 4:56 am #

I do not consider Charismatic practice as cult and I do not find favour in any writers of the past and that includes John Calvin and etc., and that is why I do not use their words/comments to be the words of God. I only recognise Bible to be the only source to be the words of God. Anything differs from what is mentioned in the Scripture is to be considered as false teaching and cannot be acceptable no matter how good that the theory could be.
Michael on 04 Aug 2009 at 12:26 pm #

Alright I’ll bite. You are aware Jon that every single one of the great cults and heresies of history has been formed by doing exactly what you say. Whether it be the Pelagians, the Arians, or the modern Oneness movement, they all thought they were simply reading the Bible according to it’s “plain meaning”. The problem was they were reading the Bible without regard to context or historical understandings. So if you want to read the Bible with no reference to history go right ahead, but unless your interpretation is infallible (meaning you are incapable of being wrong), then you, like me, are just as liable be deceived and fall into heresy as Arius, Pelagius, or Valentinus did.

Now your right that John Calvin’s words are not the Word of God, quite frankly I think he got most things wrong. Yet to say that we shouldn’t read the writings of others in the past (and even present writers) to help us understand the Christian faith and interpret the Bible is not only absurd and arrogant (for you elevate your own ability to understand above that of anyone else) in the extreme, but is dangerous. I’m sorry but given the choice between my own interpretation, your own interpretation, or the interpretation of Polycarp, who was directly discipled by John the Apostle, who of course wrote parts of the New Testament, I’m going with Polycarp. Yes his interpretation and his words aren’t the infallible Word of God, but he was in a much better position to understand the Word of God, given that he lived in the same time period, read it in its original language, and knew the authors. This becomes especially true if his interpretation is the generally accepted interpretation which two millennia of church history speaks too.
Jonathan CHM on 04 Aug 2009 at 8:34 pm #

if all the writers in the past (these exclude the writers of Bible since they were those that were inspired by God to write up the Scripture) were to be treated as the words of God, there seems to be that nobody uses them among Churches to be supplementary books of the Bible.

Only Catholics, Mormons (the Seventh-day Adventist) and cults use supplementary books other than Bible for their services.

For instance, if John Calvin or whatever writers in the past represent fully the words of God, should Christians use them as supplementary books on top of the Bible among Churches then? The practice is rather absurd and illogical.
Jonathan CHM on 04 Aug 2009 at 8:45 pm #

Even though those people that wrote their articles in the past might have browsed through the original Scripture well and might have full knowledge of the histories of the past, they were just human beings. Human beings tend to make mistakes since they are not God and they do not know the mysteries of God. As they are not God, there is a possibility that they might use their own imaginations to figure out God’s mind to be the words of God then. Could you prove to me from the Scripture that all the writers in the past other than the authors of the Bible, were without error that all Christians could rely upon them purely and not others?
Michael on 04 Aug 2009 at 11:44 pm #

Wow did you read my post – you will find the answer to your questions there. I never said that they were infallible – I said the opposite. What I did say was the odds of multiple writers who are in agreement throughout the two millenia of Church History being wrong is a lot less than me being wrong. It’s called perspectivism. However, since it appears that you think you personally have it all figured out maybe next time I have a question about the meaning of some part of the Bible I will just go consult you. Though as you rightly point out you are just a human capable of mistakes like me unless I’m missing something. So if your interpretation of a Bible passage differs with mine who castes the deciding vote?

Also as to some of your statements the Mormons and Seventh-day Adventists have completely divergent beliefs and the Catholics don’t use supplementary books per se. Your statement also ignores the fact that most cults in history did not use a supplementary book in any way. They simply took Bible versus out of context or ascribed meaning to them that was not intended.

As for use in Church services no one is suggesting and I know of no Church that would use the writings of Calvin or anyone else to the exclusion of the Bible or use them in such a way that their authority was deemed greater than that of the Bible. Rather the writing of others may be used to illuminate and bring greater understanding to the Scripture in the same way that the pastor’s own preaching is intended to. If you read the Bible itself and the few sermon’s preached within we actually have you will find that the Apostle’s themselves quoted other sources in order to illuminate the truth they wished to communicate. Paul even quoted pagan sources when addressing the Athenians.
Jonathan CHM on 05 Aug 2009 at 8:49 pm #

I never say I never make mistakes since I am too human beings. I am not that smart as you in terms of knowledge and whatsoever. What is different from me is that I dare to give comment on things that differ from the Scripture. I do not like to receive praises from men but from God. You might be a hundred times intelligence than me but I am a fool in Christ in which I am contented with.

Mormon (The Seventh-day Adventist Church) owns supplementary book for their service and that is the book of Mormons.

Catholics own a supplementary book that describes the history of Pope and their messages.

Please kindly check it out from their respective churches and you would have knowledge about them.
EricW on 05 Aug 2009 at 9:05 pm #

Charlie Chan say: Some people like broken record; they play only one song.
Jonathan CHM on 05 Aug 2009 at 9:08 pm #

Referring to Martin Luther in the past. If he was coward to keep silently the words of God by not giving comments about Catholics, all Christians might be fools in the continuation of Catholic Churches. What made Martin Luther different from other Catholics was he dared to give comments. His comments did not win him any crown before the Pope but condemnation.

I quote Martin Luther not that I make myself equal to Martin Luther. But I want to point out that we are both brave in giving comments on false teachings.

I quote Martin Luther and that do not mean I am very brave and smarter than him. He might have a hundred times intelligence and boldness than me too and I have counted myself to be just a fool in Christ in which I find joy in it.
Michael on 05 Aug 2009 at 9:53 pm #

The Mormons are NOT The Seventh Day Adventist Church – they are The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. You are talking about two different groups with completely different histories and beliefs. Now the Mormons do have a book the consider to be the Word of God in addition to the Bible called the Book of Mormon, but they are the exception rather than the rule when it comes to heresies.

As for the Catholics I don’t care to try to explain the intricacies of Catholic doctrine. If you are interested you can read the posts on this blog on Orthodoxy and Apostolic Succession. Suffice to say they don’t have any book other than the Bible that they consider to be the Word of God but they do place (too) high of emphasis on Church Tradition.

As for Martin Luther please read the posts on this blog comparing what Martin Luther believed, Sola Scriptura, and what you seem to believe, Solo Scriptura. There is a difference and comparing yourself to Luther is absurd.
#John1453 on 06 Aug 2009 at 2:15 pm #

Hmm, though it is far past Ms. Tucker’s request date for help, it would still be useful to keep the comments on topic.

For example, unlike some subsequent Calvinisits, John Calvin taught that God ordained the fall of Adam:

Again they object: were they not previously predestined by God’s
ordinance to that corruption which is now claimed as the cause of
condemnation? When, therefore, they perish in their corruption, they
but pay the penalties of that misery in which Adam fell by the
predestination of God, and dragged his posterity headlong after him.
Is he not, then, unjust who so cruelly deludes his creatures? Of
course, I admit that in this miserable condition wherein men are now
bound, all of Adam’s children have fallen by God’s will. And this is
what I said to begin with, that we must always at last return to the
sole decision of God’s will, the cause of which is hidden in him.
(Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3:23.4)

If such a barren invention is accepted [that Adam sinned because he
had free choice], where will the omnipotence of God be whereby he
regulates all things according to his secret plan, which depends
solely upon itself? Yet predestination, whether they [the objectors]
will [admit it] or not, manifests itself in Adam’s posterity. For it
did not take place by reason of nature that, by the guilt of one
parent, all were cut off from salvation…. Scripture proclaims that all
mortals were bound over to eternal death in the person of one man
[Adam] (cf. Rom. 5:12 ff.). Since this cannot be ascribed to nature,
it is perfectly clear that it has come forth from the wonderful plan
of God….
Again I ask: whence does it happen that Adam’s fall irremediably
involved so many peoples, together with their infant offspring, in
eternal death unless because it so pleased God?… The decree is
horrible indeed, I confess. Yet no one can deny that God foreknew what end man was to have before he created him, and consequently foreknew because he so ordained by his decree…. And it ought not to seem absurd for me to say that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his descendants, but also meted it out in accordance with his own decision. For it pertains to his wisdom to
foreknow everything that is to happen, so it pertains to his might to
rule and control everything by his hand. (3:23.7)

Still, it is not in itself likely that man brought destruction upon
himself through himself, by God’s mere permission and without any
ordaining. As if God did not establish the condition in which he wills
the chief of his creatures [Adam] to be! . . . For the first man fell
because the Lord had judged it to be expedient; why he so judged is
hidden from us. Yet it is certain that he so judged because he saw
that thereby the glory of his name is duly revealed.” (3:23.8)
cheryl u on 06 Aug 2009 at 3:09 pm #

#John,

Thanks for those quotes from Calvin. I have never read them before.

I can’t help but wonder how the current Calvinists that say if we are of the elect and are saved, it is all of God’s mercy but if we are not one of the elect we are getting only what we all deserve because we are all sinncers deserving of death reconcile that belief to what Calvin said here. Am I missing something? It seems that Calvin’s idea here is that all have been decreed to the corruption and eternal death by God very deliberately. How then can some Calvinists say that we are only getting what we deserve because we have all sinned if we have no choice in it whatsoever?

I never have been able to figure that out or to make any sense of it.
Michael on 06 Aug 2009 at 6:18 pm #

Cheryl,

I’m with you on this one. I just don’t get it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D49OgHQLpOM&feature=channel_page

I was watching this video by John Piper earlier and the question being addressed was God’s Sovereignty in tempting people. Shortly after 1:40 Piper states that “The Bible clearly shows that God is indirectly behind temptation”. He also states around 3:40 that should “not infer from God’s total sovereignty over all evil that it’s less evil” and around 4:05 that “God can ordain things he absolutely abhors” Finally at 4:40 he states that “God does ordain all things that come to pass ultimately, but he abhors some of them…”.

Now in another video Piper made a comment that we should never espouse something which would make God blameworthy, however given his comments in the first video I don’t see how God could not be blameworthy. If ultimately what comes to pass comes to pass because it was ordained (read caused – I don’t see any difference) by God then God is culpable for the evil resulting from the actions he ordained. I can’t find any way of holding the belief that all that comes to pass was ordained by God and not believing that we are ultimately robots simply doing what God has programmed us to do and can be no more morally responsible for our actions then Vista can be when it BSOD’s on me because of terrible programming by Microsoft. How can you abhor something and then punish it when you yourself are cause of it’s actions??? I just don’t get it.

Like I told a friend once my problem with Calvinism isn’t ultimately textual because in my opinion both sides of the debate have to twist certain Bible verses to make them say what they want them to and both sides have verses which seem pretty convincing. Ultimately my problem is one of logic and philosophy. I can’t find a way of holding to Calvinism and not holding God to be a criminal. Since the Bible states categorically that God is not a criminal and is not blameworthy I must conclude that the Calvinist interpretations of the Scripture passages they use to support their beliefs are mistaken even if they do seem to be the most obvious interpretation in the case of some verses.
Michael on 06 Aug 2009 at 7:41 pm #

ooo I knew I’d find it. In this sermon John Piper essentially agrees with Calvin and argues that the fall was ordained by God. You can listen to the sermon from the link below. Listen at minute 41 where he specifically states that God ordained the fall. I actually sent a message to Desiring God asking them what the difference between ordaining and causing was. Haven’t heard back.

http://www.resolved.org/media.aspx

Under the 2008 catagory it is the last sermon entitled “The Triumph of the Gospel in the New Heaven and the New Earth”.
Jonathan CHM on 06 Aug 2009 at 8:31 pm #

I mention Martin Luther and I do not mean I support solar Scriptura since I do not know what is mentioned in it. However, I mention him for the fact that we are alike in the sense that we have boldness to speak the words of God. I do not mind if anybody would condemn me and even to curse me to death for the fact that I personally feel that we, Christians, must not be coward to be self-egoism since we must speak the truth of God rightly if God’s words are meant to be so. Do not think that I am proud in the comments since I am considered myself to be a fool in Christ. Even though I am the fool in Christ, I have the joy and peace with me for the fact that I am in the Lord.

If Catholics do not use supplementary book on top of Bible, it is fine and can be accepted and I might be ignorant to Catholics practice and as such, I apologize as a result of my ignorance.

A concienscious Christian would truly admit that he is wrong when he has discovered his mistakes if this is not scriptural. However, he would fight for the truth if that differs from the words of God.
Michael on 06 Aug 2009 at 9:48 pm #

Being a fool for Christ doesn’t mean you blow your brains out when you become a Christian nor does it give you license to treat others who disagree with you like crap because you think you know the Truth. Everyone in this forum that I have come in contact with loves God, loves the Bible and honestly believes they are following the Bible with their beliefs and practices. We can debate the relative merits of these beliefs in a CIVIL manner, but we must be cognizant that we are just as capable of being mistaken or deceived as the other side is. When you simply state a belief, call everyone who disagrees with you a heretic, and then cite 30 Bible verses to back you up you aren’t being civil and you have set yourself up as the guardian of Truth over and above anyone else on the forum as if we don’t care about the Bible or Truth. Furthermore you make any meaningful conversation impossible because you debate by “dump truck”. This means that you are throwing out so much stuff that no one will have the time to go through your arguments verse by verse, step by step, and show you where and why your arguments are wrong, or why the Bible verses you cited don’t support your belief. I tend to have a general rule that it’s not a good idea to cite more than a couple Bible verses as support for an argument because that will give the other side the ability to respond based on the text. If they refute my use of those verses, I can always cite a couple more later and we can talk about those. Ultimately I, like many others, read blogs like this because we are searching for the Truth, and seeking to gain a greater understanding of out faith. Anselm coined the phrase “faith seeking understanding” and that is why I am here. I am not here to “win” an argument, though I may vigorously debate a point I feel strongly about.

Now this has gone far off topic so I’m going to stop responding – If you want to talk more my email address is meteeter@stthomas.edu
Michael on 06 Aug 2009 at 10:06 pm #

BTW in the interest of education real quick since you cite Luther, “Sola Scriptura” was the battle cry of the Reformation. Roughly translated it means “Scripture Alone”. However, for Luther and other Reformers this didn’t mean a complete refutation of the writings of others or of Church Tradition. They believed that where tradition didn’t directly conflict with Scripture tradition should be followed. This doctrine simply meant that Scripture was above tradition and if tradition and Scripture conflicted Scripture should win out. Unfortunately this doctrine has been taken to the extreme by the fundamentalists of the 19th and 20th centuries to mean “all we need is the Bible” and all other sources should be shunned . CMP calls this way of thinking “Solo Scriptura” (notice the substitution of the A for an O in Solo). I don’t want to go into the myriad of reasons why Solo Scriptura is wrong, but you will find some of the reasons in my earlier posts on this page, and in some of CMP’s posts elsewhere like here http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/06/defense-of-sola-scriptura-part-on/
Dave Z on 06 Aug 2009 at 11:34 pm #

To add to Michael’s last post, if we deny tradition completely, we are really saying that we do not believe the Holy Spirit was working throughout church history. But if we think the Holy Spirit WAS working, then we should pay attention to what those earlier Christians had to say.
#John1453 on 07 Aug 2009 at 10:24 am #

Further to Calvin and illogic.

Entailed in the belief that God ordained sin is the proposition that God is the ultimate author and cause of sin. If a human were to do what God did / ordained, that human would be morally guilty and deserving of approbation and punishment.

However, there are other verses in the Bible that clearly state that
God is moral, holy and not guilty of any sin.

Therefore we have this contradiction between the logical result of certain propositions, i.e., that God is morally guilty, and the clear Biblical statements that God is never guilty. Calvinists, such as John Calvin in the above quotes, say that the integration of the two beliefs is not explainable (a “paradox”, though I would disagree that that term is an accurate descriptor), but nevertheless glorifies God. I would call it a disgrace to God (as did Wesley), but hey, I’m on the other side.

Similarly, the direct assertion (and also logical result) of a belief in TULIP is that nothing we do will change the number of people in heaven. Nevertheless, the Bible commands us to witness. Therefore, Calvinists do witness because of this command, even though their witnessing will have no effect on the number of the saved. Of course, God does save people during the witnessing process, but the two things (witnessing and becoming saved) are not causally connected. The saving is entirely a work of the Spirit and separate from the witnessing in that sense.

Moreover, since God has ordained before time began whether we would witness or not, there is not anything one can do about it. What God has ordained will happen, will happen. Furthermore, any lost witnessing opportunities were ordained as well (i.e., you were ordained to “not witness”), even though God will hold you responsible for not sharing the gospel. That is because God, according to the Calvinist view, holds us morally responsible for what he has ordained we will do.

It doesn’t make any sense, of course, and John Calvin (in the quotes above) admits that. Calvin also says that the fact that it doesn’t make sense is irrelevant and that we are not to question this lake of sense. Here’s what Calvin said:

The reprobate wish to be considered excusable in sinning, on the
ground that they cannot avoid the necessity of sinning, especially
since this sort of necessity is cast upon them by God’s ordaining. But
we deny that they are duly excused, because the ordinance of God, by
which they complain that they are destined to destruction, has its own
equity [or justice]—unknown, indeed, to us but very sure. (3:23.9)

What the Calvinist system does explain, however, is how God knows things: He knows things because he ordains them.

The Arminian system (using that term broadly), on the other hand, does not claim to know or explain how God knows things; it merely accepts the Biblical text that states that God does know things. God’s knowledge, under this system, is inexplicable (but not a paradox).

regards,
#John
cheryl u on 07 Aug 2009 at 10:51 am #

#John,

I can’t remember which Calvinist author wrote the explanation that I am about to bring up here. I am pretty sure it was on John Piper’s site but I don’t think he wrote it. Can’t find it again now when I am looking for it of course! But it was his contention that God is not unjust or unrighteous in any way by ordaining certain people to be reprobate and to be held responsible for that sin and punished for it. In his understanding, God’s justice really has nothing to do with man but everything to do with being true to God’s own character. It all has to do with bringing glory to Him and showing forth all of the attributes of His character. He is just and he is righteous. He also has wrath. Therefore He has to have someone to direct those attributes to. Therefore, some have to be ordained to be reprobate so God can be true to all of His character. This is what will bring glory to His name.

I hope I am remembering all of that correctly!
cheryl u on 07 Aug 2009 at 11:43 am #

Here is an article by John Piper that speaks to this issue: http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?371
mbaker on 07 Aug 2009 at 1:01 pm #

Cheryl,

Here is a direct quote from Calvin regarding that:

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/johncalvin182878.html

The only thing is these people don’t give the original source of their quotes, but I’m sure someone can find out exactly where it came from in Calvin’s writings.
cheryl u on 07 Aug 2009 at 2:10 pm #

Thanks for the quote, mbaker.

There is something that I have been thinking about. This verse in John says that Jesus has explained God to us:

John 1:18 “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained {Him.}”

And in John 14:9 Jesus told the disciples that if they had seen Him, they had seen the Father.

I just don’t see anything of what we have been told about Jesus in the Gospel records that would ever make one think that God is a Being that would deliberately create people just to make his wrath known to others so that the ones He had mercy on could love Him more and so that He could be glorified by it. The Jesus that we see pictured in the Gospels just doesn’t fit that picture at all. Now if He has explained God, and we have seen the Father by seeing Him, it seems to me that something is terribly wrong with the Calvinistic understanding of Romans 9 as discussed above. I will agree, it fits a literal reading of those verses, however it conflicts with too many other verses of the Bible and it certainly seems to me to conflict very strongly with the picture of God that we are given in Jesus. It seems to me that something is being missed here in a very big way.
#John1453 on 07 Aug 2009 at 3:18 pm #

I agree with you, Cherylu. Jesus, and those statements by Jesus, are one of the main reasons I reject Calvinism. My other reason is that nothing in Calvinism convinces me that I should give up a literal reading of those verses that indicate that the offer of Salvation is truly made to everyone, and that God has given us the same sort of choice making faculties / power / ability that He has. Calvinists take a particular, but not in my mind Biblically required, interpretation of omniscience and sovereignty and then reread all of Scripture through that grid. Of course, they would assert that non-Calvinists have their own grid. That may be so, but I don’t find the Calvinist grid to be convincing or to ring true to who and how Jesus presented himself.

The basis for the proposition that God raises up the reprobate (eternally unsaved) in order to demonstrate His glory is found in Calvin’s Institutes (see next quote). Calvin ultimately defends this proposition by declaring that there is ultimately no reason for God’s choice beyond His pleasure to excercise His will. Anything that God does is de facto good and not evil simply because He does it.

Calvin, Institutes, 3:22:11, “Then after starting the objection, Is God unjust? instead of employing what would have been the surest and plainest defense of his justice—viz. that God had recompensed Esau according to his wickedness, he is contented with a different solution—viz. that the reprobate are expressly raised up, in order that the glory of God may thereby be displayed. At last, he concludes that God has mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth (Rom. 9:18). You see how he refers both to the mere pleasure of God. Therefore, if we cannot assign any reason for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just that it so pleases him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his will. When God is said to visit in mercy or harden whom he will, men are reminded that they are not to seek for any cause beyond his will.”

Also:

Calvin, Institutes, 3:21:5 “By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.”

Calvin, Institutes, 1:18:3, “I have already shown clearly enough that God is the author of all those things which, according to these objectors, happen only by his inactive permission. He testifies that he creates light and darkness, forms good and evil (Is. 45:7); that no evil happens which he has not done (Amos 3:6).”
mbaker on 07 Aug 2009 at 3:34 pm #

And then there are these scriptures:

(Ezekiel 18:32 NIV)

“For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live! ”

(Ezekiel 33:11 NIV)

“Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, O house of Israel?’ ”

It would certainly be difficult, if not impossible for anyone to repent, (or not) because if God had preordained everything according to Calvin’s theories, there wouldn’t be any desire there in the first place.
cheryl u on 07 Aug 2009 at 4:09 pm #

It also seems to me that those verses quoted in Ezekiel would make God out to be a bit shizophrenic to say the least if Calvin’s view is true! How could He plead with people to repent and live and to say that He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked if He has actually created that wicked one for no other purpose than eternal desturction for His own glory and if he has no way of responding at all to God’s command because God in all of eternity has decreed that he can’t and won’t??

It seems to me that a human parent that treated a chid in any way resembling the way Calvin says God treats His creation, they would be thought of as cruel and monstrous beyond belief. Yet we were created in His image!
EricW on 07 Aug 2009 at 9:41 pm #

So, how much of Calvin’s joyless view and theology of God might be attributable to the fact that he suffered from dyspepsia for much of his life?
Michael on 07 Aug 2009 at 10:41 pm #

I can handle paradox, but too me Calvinism presents outright contradictions and as Cheryl pointed out seems to make for a God with multiple personality disorder. I love you but I hate you. I want all to repent, but I’m not going to give them the ability. I take no pleasure in the suffering of the wicked, but I am going to predestine them and cause them to be in hell for eternity.

I understand that the other side says that all this is just a mystery and if they can handle that fine. However, I simply cannot go where they go and in good faith hold that God is anything other than a sadistic monster.
EricW on 08 Aug 2009 at 12:30 pm #

I think it was Ben Witherington III, perhaps, who wrote that reading Calvin’s Institutes is what convinced him against Calvinism. I think I read that in one of the posts on his blog at beliefnet.com, but I could be wrong.
Michael on 09 Aug 2009 at 12:15 am #

You know I saw a video of John Piper a while back where he was trying to answer a question from a reader of his blog as to why so many Calvinists are so negative and hateful in their actions towards others. One of he responses was that the Calvinist system has a certain intellectual rigor to it that may attract people who are not really Christians, but simply like the intellectualism of Calvinism. To me this question opened a chicken or the egg scenario as to whether it is the system which now attracts non-Christians with it’s intellectualism or if Calvin created the system because of his own intellectualism and thus it attracts like minded people. I, like Calvin, am a lawyer (yeah that’s right Calvin was by training a lawyer not a theologian) and I can see the attractiveness and intellectual rigor that exists in the Calvinist tradition, perhaps this awareness is part of why I question the system so much.
cheryl u on 09 Aug 2009 at 10:11 am #

Obviously the whole Calvinistic understanding of things is great–if you are one of the few in this world that are of God’s elect. After all, then nothing at all that you can do will be able to keep you from being saved for all of eternity. (Remember Irresisible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints. You won’t be able to NOT come to Him and you will persevere until the end.)

However, if you are one of the many, many people that God has decreed from eternity past to be reprobate–to be wicked and to be punished eternally for it to bring glory to His name–your exisitence is too terrible to even comprehend.

I have been taught all of my life of the horrors of hell and that it is a place to be avoided at all costs. Those teachings are to be found very strongly in the New Testament.

I have also been taught that God loves people, wants them to be saved, and indeed pleads with them to be saved. And that we are to be and do likewise. That is also found in the New Testament.

Therefore, neither my mind and most assuredly not my heart, can begin to wrap itself around a theology that teaches that in contradiction to all of that, God indeed decrees from all of eternity that a great number of humanity are actually going to suffer that most horrible of fates in eternal hell because He has decreed it to be so and absolutely nothing can or will change that fate for them. That idea is so horrific to me that I can’t even begin to express what it does to me.

I have been told before on another Calvinist site that my thinking as described above just shows my unrenewed mind and rebellion against God’s ways. And I guess if Calvinism is ultimately proved to be true, that would be correct. But at this time there is simply no way I can begin to grasp these ideas or in any way want to grasp them. I think to do so, I would have to totally shut off my emotions towards the unsaved in order to survive.
mbaker on 09 Aug 2009 at 12:12 pm #

I certainly agree, Cheryl. It seems to me to even hold such a point of view would be in direct opposition to Christ’s command to all of us to go and preach the gospel to all nations. Under the Calvinist point of view, what would be the point?

However, the real question that I have never gotten a satisfactory and full scriptural answer for is this : What have even been the reason Christ had to suffer and die such a horrible death on the cross in the first place, if all who were going to be saved and condemned, were already decided upon and there was no choice left at all in the matter?

I’ve heard every argument under the sun for Calvinism, and it still doesn’t ring true.
Joe on 09 Aug 2009 at 3:12 pm #

As I vaguely remember Calvin, he says that 1) human beings are hopelessly depraved; which seems odd for a creature created by God. And that 2) some of us are just vastly superior to others, “elect,” and destined to be saved. Which means no matter what other, non-elect people do, they can never be good, saved. They are never as good as Calvin, say.

Is this an accurate depiction of his theology? If so, Calvin is very deeply offensive.
Michael on 09 Aug 2009 at 5:32 pm #

I don’t know if your depiction is completely accurate Joe. Calvin certainly wouldn’t say the elect are superior to the reprobate, perhaps just lucky.

Here’s an interesting verse I’d love to hear the Calvinist interpretation of.

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.” Matt. 23:37

Now it seems to me that if we understand things as Calvinists do and the only factor in determining salvation is God’s will then this verse doesn’t make sense. This verse seems to (at least to me) indicate that it is the will of God that Israel would repent and turn to him, this what God wants, but that it is Israel who is “unwilling” not God.
cheryl u on 09 Aug 2009 at 5:48 pm #

Michael,

I have read it said somewhere by Calvinists that God somehow has two wills–I don’t exactly remember how it worked. Don’t think I ever really understood it. But it was something like the verse you quoted above was one will of God but the will of God that actually declares people reprbate is the one that is actually carried out. Again, that seems to me to make God sound like He has multiple personality disorder.

And I know at least some Calvinists would say that people somehow are still held responsible for their own actions and choices and are still justly punished for them. That thought seems to be in contradiction, however, to the quotes we have read above from both John Calvin and John Piper which seem to declare that God makes the choice in eternity for His own glory and people’s actions don’t have anything to do with it.

By the way, the verse you quoted is one of the ones I was specifically thinking of when I stated that the New Testament teaches that God loves people, wants them to be saved, and pleads with them to come to Him. Another verse that makes that point very strongly is II Corinthians 5:20,”Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”
#John1453 on 18 Aug 2009 at 6:20 pm #

More interesting material about Calvin

Calvin drafted the criminal complaint against Servetus. It is not widely known that in addition to accusing Servetus of heresies regarding Jesus’ deity, Calvin also accused Servetus of heresy because Servetus condemned Calvin’s doctrine of infant baptism (on the grounds that it made an infant part of the New Covenant without faith). Servetus called Calvin’s idea a “doctrine of demons,” as it violated Sola Fide.

Calvin also accused Servetus of blasphemy for supposedly adding an annotation to a translation of Ptolemy’s Geography of 164 A.D. that said the promised land of Palestine was to “ancient travelers” not a very promising land, but rather was a desert. Calvin claimed this contradicted Moses’ statement in Exodus in 1250 B.C. that Palestine was “flowing with milk and honey.” The accusation was false, by the way, but that did not stop Calvin.

Despite Servetus’ several written petitions for counsel to be appointed, as was his right under the prevailing law of Geneva, it was ignored in light of Calvin’s written counter-motion to deny Servetus counsel. In addition, Servetus sought to appeal after the sentence was announced, as was his right under Geneva’s law. Calvin openly scoffed at the request, and Servetus’ request was ignored. Calvin also argued for the death penalty even though no such penalty was authorized under Geneva law.

I think that the heresy accusations against Servertus were a red herring and that Calvin betrayed his true motive when he said in his Defensio that had Servetus not been so abusive toward Calvin, then Calvin would have sought to spare Servetus’ life.

After propagating these injustices against Servetus (similarities to Jesus’ mock trial come to mind) and participating in the burning to death of Servetus, John Calvin wrote these words in his Defensio:

“Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt.”

Nine years after Servetus’ death, Calvin, unrepentant of his actions, wrote:

“And what crime was it of mine if our Council, at my exhortation, indeed, but in conformity with the opinion of several Churches, took vengeance on his execrable blasphemies? Let Baudouin abuse me as long as he will, provided that, by the judgment of Melanchthon, posterity owes me a debt of gratitude for having purged the Church of so pernicious a monster.”
#John1453 on 18 Aug 2009 at 6:48 pm #

On the plus side for Calvin, here is a quote of Arminius’ esteem of Calvin:

“Next to the study of the Scriptures, I exhort my pupils to pursue Calvin’s commentaries, which I extol in loftier terms than Helmick himself (Helmick was a Dutch theologian); for I affirm that he excels beyond comparison in the interpretation of Scripture, and that his commentaries ought to be more highly valued than all that is handed down to us by the library of the fathers; so that I acknowledge him to have possessed above most others, as rather above all other men, what may be called an eminent gift of prophecy.”

Though I have seen that quote many times, I’ve not yet been able to track down an original source document containing it. Even Loraine Boettner quotes from a secondary source.
cheryl u on 18 Aug 2009 at 10:23 pm #

# John,

A very interesting man, Calvin, huh? Very different times he lived in too.