The Institutes Book 1, Chapter 5

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.

[ksen]

Here you go, this should keep you busy for a while. ;^)

[RnMomof7]

Institute Bump

[rwfromkansas]

bump

[ksen]

No man, however, though he be ignorant of these, is incapacitated for discerning such proofs of creative wisdom as may well cause him to break forth in admiration of the Creator.

It looks to me like Calvin wants to have it both ways. He wants to say that God has so revealed Himself to man that man cannot help but respond. Then he turns around and says that man will not respond.

It looks like we are losing people Mom. Do you want to keep going? I'm game if you are....

[ksen]

No one, indeed, will voluntarily and willingly devote himself to the service of God unless he has previously tasted his paternal love, and been thereby allured to love and reverence Him.

This puts the onus upon God. If God doesn't let someone taste of His "paternal love" then that person will not respond to God in love and reverence, according to Calvin.

Hasn't God showed everyone His paternal love? Then why aren't everyone responding to Him favorably?

[ksen]

Whether they will or not, they cannot but know that these are proofs of his Godhead, and yet they inwardly suppress them. They have no occasion to go farther than themselves, provided they do not, by appropriating as their own that which has been given them from heaven, put out the light intended to exhibit God clearly to their minds.

I think Calvin is very contradictory. He likes to expound on God's Sovereignty, at least Calvin's followers here do, and then Calvin says here that Man's nature is enough to overcome what God intends.

I thought that whatever God intended came to pass. Isn't that what it means for God to be Sovereign?

[ksen]

...Nor must this be restricted to one people only, since, in another place, he declares in general, that all men "became vain in their imaginations,"(Rom. 1:21)....

That's not what Paul said. Paul didn't say that ALL MEN become "vain in their imaginations." He says that those who hold "the truth in unrighteousness" (Ro 1:18) have become "vain in their own imaginations." (Ro 1:20).

[Jean Chauvin]

"I thought that whatever God intended came to pass."

All he intends DOES come to pass!

Matthew 11
21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

The fact is, as this verse clearly tells us, is that ~IF~ God had done the very same mighty works in Tyre and Sidon as he had done in Bethsaida, Tyre and Sidon would have repented long ago.

The fact is that this was never God's intention.

Matthew 1
21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save ~his~ people from their sins.

Jesus came to save ~HIS~ people.

John 10
26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of ~my~ sheep, as I said unto you.
27 ~My~ sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

Not ALL are ~HIS~ sheep!

Matthew 11
15 He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Apparently, some do ~not~ have "ears to hear".

Jean

[ksen]

In vain for us, therefore, does Creation exhibit so many bright lamps lighted up to show forth the glory of its Author. Though they beam upon us from every quarter, they are altogether insufficient of themselves to lead us into the right path.

What does God do that is ever insufficient? How is it that everything else God does or desires is done effectually, but when He places witnesses for Himself in Creation intended to bring Men to the knowledge of Himself, it is insufficient?

[ksen]

I understand that, but you didn't address the question I posted. Calvin says men, "put out the light intended to exhibit God clearly to their minds."

God INTENDED to be exhibited clearly to men's minds, yet the nature of men was strong enough to thwart what God INTENDED, according to Calvin.

Who is Sovereign?

[ksen]

But though we are deficient in natural powers which might enable us to rise to a pure and clear knowledge of God, still, as the dullness which prevents us is within, there is no room for excuse.

So if I saw a deaf and blind man heading toward the edge of a cliff and I yelled and shouted and gestured to warn him away it would still be his own fault when he fell over the edge to his death?

[ksen]

I'll get chapter 6 up sometime later today or tonight....

[Jean Chauvin]

Way back when we started this discussion (chapter 1), I noted that we need to make the distinction between the sinless perfect nature we would have had if Adam did not fall, and the fallen sinful nature we do have as a result of that fall. In other words, God put the light in men's minds before the fall.

That "light" is still there. However, since the creation, men fell. We no longer have a perfect sinless nature. We have a fallen sinful nature.

Now, that "light" which was clear to sinless man, has been "put out" by our sinful nature and the resulting enmity men have with God.

Jean

[ksen]

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I think you are reading into what Calvin is saying.

Here is the quote I pulled, broken down:

Whether they will or not, they cannot but know that these are proofs of his Godhead, and yet they inwardly suppress them.

Man knows, today, not just in the Garden, that what he is seeing is proofs of God's Godhead. I would even argue that the way Calvin has this worded that he means Man specifically knows it is the God of the Bible.

They have no occasion to go farther than themselves, provided they do not, by appropriating as their own that which has been given them from heaven, put out the light intended to exhibit God clearly to their minds.

God has intended to provide a light that will exhibit Himself clearly to Men's, all men's, minds. Not just spiritually alive Man, and not just Pre-Fall Man, but all Men today.

Then according to Calvin, Man's nature has snuffed that light out. Thereby thwarting a thing God has intended.

Do you think I am really that far off track with my interpretation of what Calvin has said?

[Jean Chauvin]

"So if I saw a deaf and blind man heading toward the edge of a cliff and I yelled and shouted and gestured to warn him away it would still be his own fault when he fell over the edge to his death?"

Let's look at this objectively.

I would think by "fault" you simply meant a causal relationship rather than a "moral" lapse.

So, who's fault?

Yours? No, you attempted your best to inform him.

The Cliff's? Nope. The cliff was simply doing what it does best.

The shoe company which manufactured the shoes he was wearing? Nope.

In other words, the "cause" of the man's fall was none other than his own. He was deaf and blind. If he didn't know where he was, the last thing he should have done was to walk aimlessly around. If he knew where he was, he should have known better than to walk over the cliff.

Perhaps he did it intentionally?

But the facts remain. That man freely chose to move his legs in such a way that he walked over the cliff.

There were many options he had. He could have used one of those little stick thingys that blind people use. He could have simply sat and cried out for help.

But, for some reason, he thought he knew better, so he decided to go walking.

Jean

[ksen]

(For the sake of argument let's posit that the blind, deaf man does not want to die)

I could have grabbed the man and irresistably drawn him away from death and towards life.

So I bear NO responsibility for doing everything except grab the guy?

[Jean Chauvin]

"That's not what Paul said. Paul didn't say that ALL MEN become "vain in their imaginations." He says that those who hold "the truth in unrighteousness" (Ro 1:18) have become "vain in their own imaginations." (Ro 1:20)."

Romans 1
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

No, I think that Calvin correctly interprets this as ALL men!

Read vs 18 again: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness...

The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against ~ALL~ ungodliness and unrighteousness.

More specifically -against the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.

You will note, in the KJV, the comma after "men". (This is also supported in the Greek on-line interlinear at www.crosswalk.com.)

In other words, this passage is saying that God's wrath is revealed against the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. And these men are also guilty of holding the truth in unrighteousness.

Another way to put it -do you know ANY man who does NOT have unrighteousness and ungodliness?

Isn't that confimred just a couple of chapters later?

Romans 3
9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Jean

[Jean Chauvin]

Better yet, let's assume that you stop the man just before he steps off the cliff. You then have the power to remove his blindness.

It is not unreasonable for him to be startled and upset that he is being disturbed from what he thinks is a peaceful walk.

Once he notices he was about to walk off the cliff and assuming he does not want to die, can you imagine that he wouldn't fall down on his knees and turn towards his "savior"?

Back to your question:

Let's assume that God ordained that we "irresistably draw men away from cliffs" (preaching the gospel) as a way of saving that man.

The man is still responsible for walking off the cliff, however, would you want to face God with the knowledge that you failed to utilize his ordained method of saving people from walking off cliffs?

Jean

[RnMomof7]

I thought that whatever God intended came to pass. Isn't that what it means for God to be Sovereign?

Do you think that things happen that surprise God Kevin? I think we are so used to bringing God down to our level that it is hard to imagine how foreknowledge and predestination are the same thing..not for us but it is for God

I think Calvin is very contradictory. He likes to expound on God's Sovereignty, at least Calvin's followers here do, and then Calvin says here that Man's nature is enough to overcome what God intends.

Actually ~ I would say ~that the idea that mans will is superior to Gods is strictly Arminian in structure. Mans will overcomes Gods will that all men without exception shuld be saved:>)

Seriously ..I think we need to understand that Calvin never denied that man has a free will given to him..the question that Calvin asks is what will man do with that free will..what will man will?