Paperback
-
SHIP THIS ITEMIn stock. Ships in 1-2 days.PICK UP IN STORE
Your local store may have stock of this item.
Available within 2 business hours
Related collections and offers
Overview
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9781433507052 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Crossway |
| Publication date: | 01/08/2010 |
| Pages: | 128 |
| Product dimensions: | 5.40(w) x 8.40(h) x 0.40(d) |
About the Author
Paul Helm (MA, Worcester College) is a teaching fellow at Regent College in Vancouver. He previously taught philosophy at the University of Liverpool and was was the J. I. Packer Chair of Theology at Regent College. He also publishes online at Helm's Deep. Paul is married to Angela, and they have five children.
Read an Excerpt
CHAPTER 1
THESE ARE THE ARTICLES AGAINST WHICH YOU MUST CONSIDER HOW TO STATE YOUR CASE
AGAINST THE FIRST ARTICLE
Article 1: By his bare and pure will God creates the greater part of the world for destruction.
Concerning the First Article, your calumniators declare that it is contrary to both nature and Scripture. With respect to nature, they maintain that every creature naturally loves its own offspring. This nature is given to them by God, and consequently God also loves his own offspring. He would not cause his creatures to love their own offspring if he did not also love his. They prove this by reasoning from Isaiah 66:9 where God said, "Shall I bring to the point of birth and not cause to bring forth?" By this he has said, "What I cause others to do, this I also do. I cause others to give birth, therefore I also give birth." Hence by analogy they argue, "God causes his creatures to love their offspring; therefore, he also loves his own offspring."
All men are the offspring of God, for God is the Father of Adam from whom all men are born. Therefore, God loves all men. But to create simply for the purpose of destruction is not an act of love but an act of hatred. Therefore, he did not create anyone for destruction. Similarly, to create is the work of love, not of hatred. Therefore, God created all men out of love, not out of hatred. In the same way, no beast (much less man) is so cruel that it wills to create its young for misery. How much less is this true of God! Could we suppose that he is inferior to the wolf? Christ argues in this way: "If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!" (Matt. 7:11). Your calumniators argue, suppose Calvin is evil, yet even he does not wish to beget a son for misery; how much less would God? They say these and other similar things about nature.
On the other hand, concerning Scripture your calumniators argue as follows. God saw all that he had made to be very good; therefore, the man he made was very good. If we suppose that he created that same man for destruction, he then created what is good for destruction and he loves to destroy what is good. It is blasphemous even to think in such a way. Likewise, God created one man and he placed him in paradise, which is a life of blessing. Therefore, he created all men for a blessed life, for all are created in the one man. And if all men are fallen in Adam, it is necessary that all men stood in Adam and exist in the same condition as Adam. Again, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked." Again, "God desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." Again, if God created the majority of the world for perdition, it follows that his anger is greater than his mercy. However, Scripture declares that he is slow to anger and quick to mercy. It also declares that his anger extends only to the third and fourth generations, but that his mercy will be known even to a thousand generations.
AGAINST THE SECOND ARTICLE
Article 2: God not only predestined Adam to damnation but also predestined the causes of his damnation, whose fall he not only foresaw, but by his secret and eternal decree he ordained that he would perish. In order that this would come about in due time, God provided the apple for the purpose of the fall.
Your calumniators say that the second article is the doctrine of the Devil, and they demand of us, Calvin, that we show them where this is written in the Word of God.
AGAINST THE THIRD ARTICLE
Article 3: The sins that are committed are not solely by God's permission but are committed even by the very will of God. For as far as sin is concerned, it is frivolous to make a distinction between the permission and the will of God. Whoever makes this distinction wishes to please God by flattery and adulation.
About the third article, concerning the difference between will and permission, they say: Calvin claims to be a prophet of God, but we say that he is a prophet of the Devil. It is clear that one of us must be speaking falsehood. For if he is a prophet of God, we lie. But if he is a prophet of the Devil, he himself lies when he says that he is a prophet of God. What if both of these are the will of God? That is, if it is the will of God that Calvin is a prophet of God, and God wills also that we say he is a prophet of the Devil, then he wills a contradiction, and this is impossible. For if God wills a lie, he does not will the truth. Also if he wills the truth, he does not will a lie. From which it follows that if God wills that one party speaks the truth, he does not will the other to lie. But one party certainly lies. Therefore, they lie not from the will of God but from the permission of God. Therefore, there is a difference in God between his permission and his will.
There are many clear examples that point to the difference between God's permission and his will. Ezekiel 20:39, where, after God reproved his people with many words because they refused to obey his commandments, says, "Go serve every one of you his idols, now and hereafter, if you will not listen to me." It is as if he said, "I permit you to remain in your lust after you were not willing to obey my commandments." This seems to be the same as what he previously said in the same chapter: "Because they had not obeyed my rules ... I gave them statutes that were not good" (24–25). The God of Israel did not give commands that were not good, for all of God's commands are good. But since they repudiated the good commands of God, he forsook them, and being forsaken by God, they fell into following evil commandments. Just as being deserted by the father, or rather when his father was forsaken, the prodigal son fell into ruin in his luxury. And just as Paul said, "because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false" (2 Thess. 2:10–11).
This appears to be the same even in Amos 4:4–5: "Come to Bethel and transgress ... for so you love to do." So it is today. Men who do not wish to obey God, who say that he does not will sin, say God permits spirits of deception to exist, like your own, who teach that God wills sin. He also permits those who do not wish to obey the truth to obey a lie.
Additionally, your calumniators point to a passage in Zechariah (12),where God says that he is angry with the nations who are at rest because when he was lightly angry with Israel, they furthered the evil. That is, they greatly vexed the Israelites more than the anger of God required. Therefore this was by the permission of God, not by his will.
They also point to a similar example from the prophet Obed, who reproves the Israelites because they greatly afflicted Judah more than the anger of God required (2 Chron. 28:9). These calumniators also point to the example of the prodigal son, which I have already touched on. It would be absurd for you to say that he lived his luxurious life by the will of his father. Therefore this must have been by his permission. In the same way your calumniators say that the guilty are the prodigal children of God. They sin not by the will of God but by his permission. Likewise, Christ asked, "Do you want to go away as well?" (John 6:67). Christ certainly did not bring it about that they departed, but he permitted them to do so.
Finally, they point to the fact that the difference between permission and will is a matter of common sense. When Christ taught divine things he followed common sense. If common sense is taken away, then all the parables of Christ will be nullified, for we interpret these parables by means of common sense.
AGAINST THE FOURTH ARTICLE
Article 4: All the crimes that have been accomplished by any man are the good and just works of God.
Against the fourth article your calumniators exclaim, "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil" (Isa. 5:20). Now, if sin is a good and righteous work of God, it follows that righteousness would be an evil and an unrighteous work of God, for righteousness is entirely contrary to sin. If sin is righteous, it follows that unrighteousness is righteous, for sin is unrighteousness. If sin is a work of God, it follows that God brings about sin; and if he brings sin about, then according to Christ he is a slave to sin. If sin is a work of God, and Christ was offered up in order that sin might be destroyed, then he was offered up in order that the work of God might be destroyed. But if Christ came in order that the work of the Devil might be destroyed (as Peter testified),what then is the work of the Devil? If sin is the righteous work of God, then God hates and punishes his own righteous work. Therefore, it is unrighteous. And if it is presented to them that sin is not sin to God, your calumniators answer, to whom then is it sin? Or for what reason does he hate himself? Or for what reason is sin called sin unless it is contrary to the law — not man's law, but God's? If sin is the work of God, then God brings about sin. And if God brings about sin, he sins, just as if he brings about righteousness, he is righteous.
And if God sins, on what grounds does he reject those who sin? So is it not a better thing for him to decree men to sin, so that they might be imitators of him? A father ought to desire the same thing for his offspring. "Be holy," it is said, "for I am holy" (Lev. 11:44; 1 Pet. 1:16). Therefore, the very same argument will be deployed: "You must perform sin, because I have performed sin."
AGAINST THE FIFTH AND SIXTH ARTICLES
Article 5: No adultery, theft, or murder is committed without the will of God being involved (Inst. 14.44.).
Article 6: Scripture clearly testifies that crimes are planned not only by the will of God but even by his authority.
Against the fifth and sixth arguments the calumniators and many others declare that this consequence is of the greatest importance: if God wills sin and is the author of sin, then he himself will be punished. For all sin will be judged with respect to the author. If God wills sin, then the Devil does not will sin. That is to say, the idea that the Devil is God is a complete contradiction. If God wills sin, he loves sin; and if he loves sin, he hates righteousness. If God wills sin, he is more wicked than many men, for there are many men who do not wish to sin. In fact, the nearer someone draws to the nature of God, the less he wills to sin. Why else would Paul say, "For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing" (Rom. 7:19)? Why does Paul not will what God wills? Or does Paul will what God does not will? Finally, your calumniators ask where Scripture testifies that these evil acts are planned not only by God's will but even by his authority.
AGAINST THE SEVENTH ARTICLE
Article 7: Whatever men bring about when they sin, they do so by the will of God, so much so that the will of God often clashes with his precepts.
The calumniators ask concerning the seventh article: if the will of God often contends with his command, how can it be known when he wills or when he does not will what he commands? If Calvin says what God commands must always be done, whether he wills it or does not will it, it follows that God sometimes wills himself to be resisted. For instance, if God commands me not to commit adultery and yet wills that I commit adultery, and yet I ought not to commit adultery, then I ought to do what is contrary to his will. Now, when he sincerely commands all Israel, "You shall not commit adultery," does he will that all should not commit adultery or that part of the people should commit adultery and another part should not?
Calvin, these calumniators ask for a direct answer to this question. If you say that he wills some to commit adultery and some not to commit adultery, then God himself will be contrary to the commands that he gives. They also say, if he commands one thing and wills another, if he has sweetness in his mouth and bitterness in his heart, then God is a hypocrite. If you respond to these objections by asserting, "God has two contrary wills within himself, one public that is clear in his commands, another hidden," then they ask, "Who revealed this hidden will to Calvin?" For if Calvin and his followers know it, then it is no longer hidden, and if they do not know it, how can they possibly affirm what they are ignorant of?
They also say that it is not possible for two contradictory statements to be the same at the same time and in the same place. However, you advance the fact that to will and not to will are the same, but they are contrary. If God has two wills contrary to one another, it is plausible to suppose that Calvin — one who evidently imitates God — has two wills, the one that he declares, the other that he privately intends to will. Therefore, I refuse to believe a man who is clearly two-tongued, double-hearted, and double-willed.
Also, if God commands righteousness and wills unrighteousness, it follows that the Devil commands unrighteousness and wills righteousness. And if God wills one thing by declaring something else and still does not sin, it follows that if any person imitates him in this, he does not sin, for it is certainly not a vice to be an imitator of God. Therefore, it is lawful for man to be instructed, "Lie! Say one thing and carry on another way in your heart." In this way you may be a liar like your father who says one thing and wills another.
They also ask, according to which will is the Lord speaking when he commands his people to pray "Your will be done" (Matt. 6:10) and "Whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother" (Matt. 12:50)?
Also from Paul, "You call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law" (Rom. 2:17). Certainly here is the will of God. That which he commands in the law, if it is good (and it certainly is), must necessarily be contrary to that which is evil. Indeed, whatever is good is contrary to whatever is evil. There is also that well-known saying of Christ's: "How often would I have gathered your children together ... and you would not!" (Luke 13:34). Certainly Christ speaks of the public will, the one which he revealed in many ways. But if Christ had another will contrary to this one, then his whole life would have been a clear contradiction, and this is too dreadful even to contemplate.
Finally, they say, if God commands one thing and wills another, it is not two wills but deceit, for whoever declares himself to will what he does not will utters a deception. The commands of his Word are not what he wills; rather, it is his will to deceive.
AGAINST THE EIGHTH AND NINTH ARTICLES
Article 8: The hardening of Pharaoh, indeed even his stubbornness of soul and rebellion, was the work of God. Moses testifies to this, according to whom the whole rebellion of Pharaoh is to be attributed to the will of God.
Article 9: The will of God is the supreme cause of the hardness of men's hearts.
Concerning the eighth and ninth articles your calumniators ask, what did Moses mean when he wrote, "Still Pharaoh's heart was hardened" (Ex. 7:13)? Is this to be our interpretation, that "Pharaoh hardened his heart" means that God hardened Pharaoh's heart? Your interpretation is certainly more unreasonable than this: that God hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and this means God permitted Pharaoh to be hardened in his heart naturally, because Pharaoh refused to obey him.
They ask a similar question concerning these words: "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts" (Heb. 3:7–8). Were you to interpret this as "God is not willing to harden your hearts," it would be absurd because he commands one man what is the work of God alone. For if the work of God is to harden the heart, man is not able to command his heart, much less to make it hard or not to make it hard. It is no more possible for man to obey than it is possible for him to add one cubit to his stature or to subtract one.
AGAINST THE TENTH ARTICLE
Article 10: Satan is a liar by the command of God.
Against your tenth article, your calumniators argue: if Satan is a liar by the command of God, to be a liar is just and Satan is just. If it is just to command a lie (which is certainly true, if Calvin speaks the truth), then to obey a lie is just, for obedience should be considered simply from the justice of the command. Again, as it is unjust to obey an unjust command, it is just to obey a just command. What if Calvin said, Satan is not a liar obediently; that is, he does not obey God when he lies? We respond by using Calvin's own words, that the lie is from the command of God and that to lie is to be obedient. Likewise, Satan is obedient when he disobediently lies, since God commanded Satan not to be obedient but to lie.
(Continues…)
Excerpted from "The Secret Providence of God"
by .
Copyright © 2010 Paul Helm.
Excerpted by permission of Good News Publishers.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
Preface,
Editor's Introduction,
Calumniator's Preface to Certain Articles,
Articles on Predestination Extracted from John Calvin's Latin and French Writings,
These Are the Articles against Which You Must Consider How to State Your Case,
John Calvin's Response,
What People are Saying About This
"Calvin's treatise on the secret providence of God shows the Reformer at his theological best and polemically most acute. Like Luther before him, he demonstrates why the doctrine of divine sovereignty lies at the very heart of the Reformation, and why the doctrine is of such singular doctrinal, pastoral, and ecclesiastical importance. It is to be hoped that this new edition will introduce a new generation to Calvin's thinking on this vital matter."
—Carl R. Trueman, Professor of Biblical and Religious Studies, Grove City College
"Calvin's robust defense of God's providential rule of history is an excellent reminder of what was a vital concern for the French Reformer and also of his desire to be rigorously biblical and, as such, God—glorifying. Here is a pattern of theological reflection and method truly worthy of emulation."
—Michael A. G. Haykin, Professor of Church History and Biblical Spirituality, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary