Friday, 13 April 2012
-
John Calvin on The Call to Salvation
By Nic Don at TheopoliticalIn commenting on Jesus’s statement that many are called but few are chosen, Calvin distinguishes between the general call that God issues to all people, and the special call which cannot be resisted, which is issued only to the elect. Because this special call cannot be resisted, if it were issued to all then all would be saved. This shows that the Calvinist understanding of salvation and the gospel allows – in theory – for universal salvation. However, God does not entirely will all to be saved, and so the special, irresistible call is only issued to some.
In Institutes 3.24.8 Calvin states:
[T]here is an universal call, by which God, through the external preaching of the word, invites all men alike, even those for whom he designs the call to be a savor of death, and the ground of a severer condemnation. Besides this there is a special call which, for the most part, God bestows on believers only, when by the internal illumination of the Spirit he causes the word preached to take deep root in their hearts. Sometimes, however, he communicates it also to those whom he enlightens only for a time, and whom afterwards, in just punishment for their ingratitude, he abandons and smites with greater blindness.
This is a remarkable passage for a couple of reasons. The first thing that jumps out is the statement that the general invitation to salvation is held out to some specifically to be a “savor of death, and the ground of severer condemnation.” Indeed, it seems the non-elect would be better off if they received no invitation to the gospel than they are after receiving this general invitation; before they were as guilty of sin as anyone, while now they’re also guilty of rejecting this invitation, despite that this invitation was offered without the possibility of their accepting.
But the second thing that jumps out is even more remarkable. For the special call is not exclusively given to the elect. ”For the most part,” Calvin writes, it is only for believers. But “sometimes” God enlightens individuals but does not “cause the preached work to take deep root in their heart.” And then, because of their ingratitude (which they could not have, since God did not cause the word to take deep root), God abandons them and blinds them even further than they were originally!
Note that Calvin is not saying that these people merely seemed to be enlightened or accepted by God. They are genuinely enlightened, as much so as any believer. God does not only seem to abandon them; he held them up for a time, yet did not enable them to express gratitude, and for that reason abandons them. Any Christian could be in this position today.
To me, this is one of the most challenging passages in Calvin. I think a moderate Reformed perspective would do well to abandon Calvin at this point, even while holding to the general sentiments of the Westminster Catechism. Perhaps Calvin oversteps himself here; Calvin is being hypercalvinist. The alternative, I’m afraid, derails pastoral counseling, and forces the reformed advocate to be either deceptive or to tell parishioners that God may not love you with the kind of love necessary to enable and encourage your spiritual well-being.
What do you think? Is there a better option for Reformed pastoral counseling? Can Calvinism be detached from this passage, or is it a necessary corollary to Calvin’s other doctrines? Does it stand in contradiction to the doctrine of perseverance of the saints?
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)


Recommend



Comments (13)
I totally was thrown by the title and I originally read this to say, "Calvin and Hobbs on the call to salvation" . . . sort of a letdown.
@TheTheologiansCafe@xanga - Calvin was named for John Calvin, though. Hobbes for Thomas Hobbes and Miss Wormwood for the demon in the C.S. Lewis's Screwtape Letters.
@SirNickDon@xanga - You realize how nerdy it is that you know all of that?
God has foreknowledge. Those he foreknows that will believe in him, he chooses. I agree that what Calvin says makes no sense and is contradictory to God's nature. A lot has to be twisted around to try to make any kind of sense to it, which is why Calvinists must always resort to double talk when attempting to reason it out.
In the original post, the author states "However, God does not entirely will all to be saved, and so the special, irresistible call is only issued to some."
Does that not conflict with 2 Peter 3:9? "The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but
is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all
should reach repentance." (ESV)
But “sometimes” God enlightens individuals but does not “cause the preached work to take deep root in their heart.” And then, because of their ingratitude (which they could not have, since God did not cause the word to take deep root), God abandons them and blinds them even further than they were originally!
I have no problem with Calvin here, many are "enlightened" in a non saving way. They accept the gospel for superficial yet sensical reasons and unfortunately have not been broken over their sin. A lot of the gospel makes sense and people believe a part of it for these reasons, but it often falls short of a life transforming grace that is the result of regeneration of the Holy Spirit. This fact causes me to be very sad. I'm not happy about it at all. But the cause is man's response and nature, not God. There is a call well intended that goes out to all. This is "the free offer of the gospel" (google that keyword). But man's nature is that it will never accept it. However, we may freely ask God, today, that he may have mercy on us and forgive us of this attitude towards him. And this he promises to forgive. If we did it, it was his grace that showed it to us... not the result of being the smartest guy in the room to figure it out. Thanks be to God that we who believe, do believe... not our own intelligence.
It seems to me that if God didn't want all mankind to be saved--albeit knowing that some would ultimately decline His invitation--then Jesus would hardly have to become human and die. God would just have had to save those He wanted to save. But in becoming human and entering fully into our humanity--holding His human nature in common with every single human being--the covenant of God's love is to no insignificant degree extended to every. single. human. being. Just as God promised in the past to Abraham and his descendants that "You will be my people and I will be your God," the Incarnation shows our God becoming one of His people, such that for all eternity, no matter how depraved we become, we are irreversibly His people and He is our God; He is, through, with and in Jesus Christ, one of US. What Calvin says here, at least by my understanding of it, totally disregards this fundamental reality. To suggest that there are those among mankind that God DOESN'T want to save seems totally contrary to the Christian belief that God is love itself.
Then again, I am no Calvinist, so I may be misreading and misunderstanding him entirely.
all I know is, I want to spend eternity with Christ...
@Ancient_Scribe@xanga - Agreed. This is one of my main problems with Calvin's viewpoint. If God had already chosen some to be saved and some to be discarded, what good is Jesus' death? The bible claims that Jesus died so everyone would be ok if they believed, not "some are already saved, and the others will never be saved no matter what they do." It just doesn't seem to make sense to me.
It's my opinion that Calvin was reacting severely to the Catholic teachings at the time. Whereas Catholicism in the time of Luther and Calvin was teaching that people could buy their pardon for sins, Calvin went the COMPLETE opposite direction and claimed that you had no choice in the matter at all. :-/
@Ooglick@xanga - "Whereas Catholicism in the time of Luther and Calvin was teaching that people could buy their pardon for sins..." It's more complicated than that of course, but I think your sense that Calvin was reacting to a lot of misunderstanding and abuse is pretty accurate!
@Ancient_Scribe@xanga - *thinks* I am kinda embarrassed to admit this, but I only know as much about that era of Catholicism as was taught in public school. I'd like to know more about the complications of it if you have the time eventually. lol.
I'm not sure I understand all the implications (you seem to be referring to a bigger back story), but Rom 10 comes to mind, when I read this. I was thinking about it the other day...and it remains a noggin twister to me.
Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth.
18 So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus?
21 Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?
It seems my part is merely to love without having clarity on another's salvation...or perhaps more unnerving even my own (as I work out my salvation with fear and trembling).
I mean...this is why I'm not a Calvinist. I think John Calvin wrote according to what was happening at that time. To say the least, I find his words to be disheartening.
I think he is struggling with what Paul struggled with, which was the idea that people are accountable for their actions and that God is control of all of history.
Or maybe he was just pissed off at some so called "Christians."