The Institutes Book 1, Chapter 14

The Institutes of the Christian Religion ^ | 1500's | John Calvin

[ksen]

BOOK 1:
Chapter 1 - THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD AND OF OURSELVES MUTUALLY CONNECTED. - NATURE OF THIS CONNECTION.
Chapter 2 - WHAT IT IS TO KNOW GOD,--TENDENCY OF THIS KNOWLEDGE.
Chapter 3 - THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD HAS BEEN NATURALLY IMPLANTED IN THE HUMAN MIND.
Chapter 4 - THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD STIFLED OR CORRUPTED, IGNORANTLY OR MALICIOUSLY.
Chapter 5 - THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD CONSPICUOUS IN THE CREATION, AND CONTINUAL GOVERNMENT OF THE WORLD.
Chapter 6: THE NEED OF SCRIPTURE, AS A GUIDE AND TEACHER, IN COMING TO GOD AS CREATOR.
Chapter 7: THE TESTIMONY OF THE SPIRIT NECESSARY TO GIVE FULL AUTHORITY TO SCRIPTURE. THE IMPIETY OF PRETENDING THAT THE CREDIBILITY OF SCRIPTURE DEPENDS ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE CHURCH.
Chapter 8. THE CREDIBILITY OF SCRIPTURE SUFFICIENTLY PROVED IN SO FAR AS NATURAL REASON ADMITS.
Chapter 9. ALL THE PRINCIPLES OF PIETY SUBVERTED BY FANATICS, WHO SUBSTITUTE REVELEVATIONS FOR SCRIPTURE.
Chapter 10. IN SCRIPTURE, THE TRUE GOD OPPOSED, EXCLUSIVELY, TO ALL THE GODS OF THE HEATHEN.
Chapter 11. IMPIETY OF ATTRIBUTING A VISIBLE FORM TO GOD. - THE SETTING UP OF IDOLS A DEFECTION FROM THE TRUE GOD.
Chapter 12. GOD DISTINGUISHED FROM IDOLS, THAT HE MAY BE THE EXCLUSIVE OBJECT OF WORSHIP.
Chapter 13. THE UNITY OF THE DIVINE ESSENCE IN THREE PERSONS TAUGHT, IN SCRIPTURE, FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.

[ksen]

Mom, would you mind giving out an Institutes ping when you get a chance?

Thanks.

[LiteKeeper]

read much later

[Biblical Calvinist]

Thanks for posting the individual chapters of the Institutes for discussion..keep it up, for this is a great way for people to understand what Calvin really taught - instead of relying on half baked misconceptions of what he taught that keep floating around like contagious flu viruses.

[ksen]

Institutes ping!

[Revelation 911]

Every thing damnable in him he brought upon himself, by his revolt and fall. Of this Scripture reminds us, lest, by believing that he was so created at first, we should ascribe to God what is most foreign to his nature. For this reason, Christ declares, (John 8:44p) that Satan, when he lies, "speaketh of his own," and states the reason, "because he abode not in the truth."

Thanks ksen - as a damnable, heretical arminian - could someone spell out for me something that catches my eye here - Is Calvin assigning "free will" to satan, recognizing God is not the author of evil ?

am I reading that right when he abides not in the truth by choice ?

I recognize God knows that choice before satan has made it - - help me out here

[xzins]

I say let's go forward with the half-baked misconceptions.

They are the real targets.

Shoot them and you shoot the enemy.

Resort to the actual words of John Calvin will be of no help.

There is a report that John Calvin and John Wesley sat down with Luther and Arminius and actually consumed infant children for lunch.

As Bill O'Reilly would say, "What say you?" (And don't give me that often heard trash that they lived at different times and places!)

[ksen]

Let me try....

Satan was not created with Sin present. He was created good, as everything God created was good (Ge 1:31).

At some point in time Satan sinned and fell. Satan was created good and had the capacity to remain good. He chose to sin all on his own.

Of course God knew before He had created the first atom that Satan would fall into sin and yet He created anyway.

If God had initially created Satan with sin than you could safely charge God with being the Author of Sin. However, He didn't create Satan with sin, He created Satan good.

I think that is the difference.

[newgeezer]

Oh, and lest we forget, unitarian heretic Michael Servetus was burned at the stake by the evil John Calvin, right?

(thanks for the ping, Mom :-)

[Revelation 911]

Of course God knew before He had created the first atom that Satan would fall into sin and yet He created anyway.

Im with ya here

If God had initially created Satan with sin than you could safely charge God with being the Author of Sin. However, He didn't create Satan with sin, He created Satan good.

....and Im still with you - but in my density - then didnt satan act in his own free will - even though God knew what that will would be?

In the same line of thought, cant a fallen man ask Christ to inhabit his heart ?

I know Im splitting hairs here - but as satan was free to choose - arent we, as well, free to choose God?

or is prevenient grace not part of this brain cramp ? LOL

[ksen]

didnt satan act in his own free will - even though God knew what that will would be?

Sure, Satan freely chose to sin, Adam freely chose to sin, I freely choose to sin.

I know Im splitting hairs here - but as satan was free to choose - arent we, as well, free to choose God?

I don't think you would find any Calvinist that would argue otherwise. They would say of course Man is free to choose, it's just that without Divine intervention Man would never freely choose to believe on Jesus Christ.

[Revelation 911]

I don't think you would find any Calvinist that would argue otherwise. They would say of course Man is free to choose, it's just that without Divine intervention Man would never freely choose to believe on Jesus Christ.

Ksen - we still dont diverge here - Salvation is an act of the Holy Spirit and Gods grace- wether he comes upon me when I ask is another story as only God knows my heart.

hey x, do you see the point I am poorly making?

[xzins]

Rev, you and ksen agree. Arminians believe that no one can choose Christ without the Holy Spirit's intervention. Calvinists believe the same thing.

Both of you believe that when left to their own devices, a human being will never choose Christ.

Without the Holy Spirit's intervention no one can choose Christ.

It's just that Ksen believes the Holy Spirit intervenes by regenerating the individual. You believe that the Holy Spirit intervenes by ENLIGHTENING the individual short of regeneration so that he/she can make a knowing choice.

[ksen]

The duty of a Theologian, however, is not to tickle the ear, but confirm the conscience, by teaching what is true, certain, and useful.

This should be emblazoned over the door of every seminary.

[Jean Chauvin]

"Rev, you and ksen agree. Arminians believe that no one can choose Christ without the Holy Spirit's intervention. Calvinists believe the same thing."

Actually, there is a difference. Calvinism believes that through God's unmerited favor (grace), he gives us our Faith in which we believe in him.

Hebrews 12
2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

The arminian denies this.

"It's just that Ksen believes the Holy Spirit intervenes by regenerating the individual. You believe that the Holy Spirit intervenes by ENLIGHTENING the individual short of regeneration so that he/she can make a knowing choice."

Arminians also take issue with the Irresistable nature of God's grace (the "I" in T.U.L.I.P.).

This, then, begs the question as to whether the you and the Arminians believe that this "Enlightening" is "Irresistable".

If this "Enlightening" is not "Irresistable", then what good is it?

If this "Enlightening" is "Irresistable", then what is with the Arminian objection to Calvinism's "Irresistable Grace"?

Jean

[xzins]

Based on the absolute foreknowledge predestining, it would, of course, be foreknown, and, therefore, irresistible.

But, I realize that's not what you mean.

Arminians, in general (except those like me), believe that the ENLIGHTENING is irresistible, but the believing, which preceeds regeneration, is not irresistible.

[xzins]

I'm not a flower, I'm a formula

TU_.5UI_.5P_.9

[Jean Chauvin]

"Arminians, in general (except those like me), believe that the ENLIGHTENING is irresistible, but the believing, which preceeds regeneration, is not irresistible. "

So, if "Enlightening" someone's mind in order that they can "see" is acceptable, then what is the objection to the "Regenerating" someone's heart in order that they "believe"?

In the case of the irresistable "Enlightening", one will not have the ability to "not see", while in the case of irresistable "Regeneration", one will not have the ability to "not believe".

It seems that if this "Enlightenting" is "Irresistable" as you claim, then Arminianism has not removed the "problem" of God interfering with man's "free-will" completely. They have only moved it a step away.

In other words, Arminianism takes objection with "Irresistable Grace" because if "Grace" were "Irresistable", then, by definition, man would not have "free-will".

However, if this "Enlightening" (Prevenient Grace) were likewise "Irresistable", then, by definition, man would not have "free-will".

Jean

[xzins]

Jean, let me emphasize that I'm speaking for myself, and not for Arminians in general. They might not buy what I'm saying. I don't know. (PM might.)

In any case, the enlightening IS irresistible. (He is the light who lightens every man who comes into the world.)

Therefore, the only objection I have to your version (irresistible grace) is that I think it lacks some biblically in terms of explaining the "belief" passages.

Arminianism thinks it has removed the problem of interference with man's free will because the enlightening makes possible a "clear" judicial choice. This choice enlightens all the way to a "no complaints" adjudicating. So then, it is at the "moment of choice and the exercise of choice" that 'free will' is not interfered with.

A positive choice is not irresistible according to classical arminianism.

For me, however, based on absolute foreknowledge, the Lord DOES know who will make the positive choice. They are then irresisibly enlightened by plan, and irresistibly regenerated based on their foreknown positive choice for Christ. (PM might disagree with that.)

[P-Marlowe]

(PM might disagree with that.)

Actually "pre-determination" might be a better way to express it. If God knows that I will positively respond to the gospel, it would then be impossible for me to not positively respond to the gospel. And I will respond to the gospel at the exact moment that God knows that I will. It's not that it's "irresistible" but there's nothing that's gonna stop it.