Well, we come at last to Calvin's doctrine of election for which he is famous or infamous, depending on who you're talking to, as I was looking over my notes for this lecture. It really is more than I can do in one hour and a few minutes, but I think we'll take our time on this one, because even if we need to go into next class, we need to spend some time with this, because it's often misunderstood, and at least we want to have Calvin's view of it exactly what Calvin taught, then we can make up our own minds as to whether he's right or not. So we'll feel a bit relaxed and take our time on this topic. The next topic, which is resurrection, Calvin's eschatology. We can cover fairly quickly, Calvin is famous for his treatment of election, but not so famous for his treatment of eschatology, not that it's unimportant, but we'll see when we get to it what needs to be said about that topic, but a good bit needs to be said about this topic. So with that word of introduction, let's turn to prayer, using again a prayer from Calvin and an appropriate prayer for this subject that we're going to be talking about today and next time. Let us pray. That Almighty God, that as Thou has been pleased to adopt us, once for all, as thy people, for this in, that we might be engrafted as it were into the body of thy son, and so be made conformable to our head. O grant that through our whole life we may strive to seal in our hearts the faith of our election, that we may be the more stimulated to render the true obedience, and that thy glory may also be made known to us. And those others also whom Thou has chosen together with us may we labor to bring with us, that we may with one accord celebrate thee as the author of our salvation, and so ascribe to thee the glory of thy goodness, and having cast away and renounced all confidence in our own virtue, we may be led to Christ as the only fountain of thy election, in whom also is set before us the certainty of our salvation through thy gospel, until we shall at length be gathered with him into that eternal glory, which he has procured for us by his own blood, a man. It's really a novel recently, and I came across this sentence character in this novel, that I was like a lost soul in a Calvinist world, damn before birth, for no fault of my own, but nonetheless contemptible to the suspicious company of the elect. You can find statements like that in popular writings frequently, because Calvin is undisidentified with election and not only identified with election, but identified with a very twisted view of election, as we find in this quotation, I'm teaching a senior school class at Central, and we're looking at the institute's in this class, and one of the members of the class told me that whenever he tells people that work that he's studying Calvin, Calvin's institute's, they're quite startled by that, and if the person knows anything at all about Calvin, the person will say, well, isn't he the fellow that believed in predestination? So that is a reputation that Calvin has received, here's a cartoon I found some time ago, all great, great moments in church history, Calvin invents predestination. Here he is, these jugs have labels like total depravity, irresistible grace, limited atonement, he's mixing these things together, of course the cartoon, which is projorative, doesn't really get it all wrong, because then here's a Bible and a candle, and that's the source of Calvin's teaching. And another thing to say about this is that Calvin's doctrine of predestination was quite unoriginal. The reputation that Calvin has as the person who invented predestination is really quite a false one. If you study the reformers, you see the exact same teaching in Luther, and in Malanthin, and in Busser, and in Swingley, although each one will put it in his own words, nonetheless the same teaching in all the essentials present in all of those reformers, and if you go back before the reformers in the radical Augustinians of the medieval period, like Thomas Bradwardine or Gregory of Remini, you can find the same teaching. And then if you go back far enough, you come to St. Augustin, and Calvin is certainly deriving most of what he is saying from Augustin. He says in 322-8, if I wanted to weave a whole volume from Augustin, I could readily show my readers that I need no other language than his. In 19th century Charles Hodge was teaching and writing at Princeton. He preferred to use Augustinianism to Calvinism, because he felt Calvinism, the word was so misused and misunderstood that he would call the system of theology that he was presenting, which indeed was Calvinism, Augustinianism, because it comes originally, as far as post-biblical authors are concerned from St. Augustin, but St. Augustin got his teaching from the Bible, from Scripture, and that's what Calvin maintains, he says, let us imagine that these fathers are silent. In other words, if nobody in all of church history had taught this doctrine, we could still pay attention to the matter itself by turning to the Bible and certainly to the Apostle Paul. So, first thing I want to say is that Calvin is profoundly unoriginal in his teaching. Of course, not everyone in church history had taken that Augustinian, Pauline Augustinian track, but Calvin follows in the footsteps of some great people who did, and as you look at the 16th century reformers, he's in good company there, too. When we look at Calvin's doctrine, we realize that it was already present in 1536. So, it's not something he adds as he makes the revisions to his institutes, which we have seen are not so much revisions as enlargements. By 1559, the doctrine has a much more developed place, much for statement. Calvin wrote his commentary on Romans in 1540, so that comes after the first two editions of the institutes, 1536 and 1559, and you can imagine how careful exegetical study of Romans is going to give further insight to Calvin on this teaching. And then through his career as a reformer in Geneva, he entered into a number of controversies with people related to this doctrine, controversy with Bolesac, controversy with Piggias, and some others as well. And in that political situation where Calvin is being forced to answer attacks on the doctrine of election, he develops his thought further in those ways as well. So, the doctrine of Calvin is present in 1536, but much more developed and much for in 1556. Another point we need to make is the surprising location of the doctrine. And I've kind of anticipated this from time to time by saying Calvin could have treated the election here. Book 1 could have treated it in book 2, but he treats it in book 3 and toward the end of book 3. It's not in book 1, book 1 is the knowledge of God, the creator, the way that election could have function in book 1 would have been like this. There is a God and that God has decreed whatsoever comes to pass, and that would include providence and predestination. And predestination would include election and reprobation, certainly a way to look at this doctrine. God is eternal God, and even before you get to the doctrine of creation you could talk about the decrees of God, in the fact that God has planned all things, and all things would have to mean all things not only in providence, but in predestination. Earlier theologians, such as Thomas Aquinas, had followed that pattern, if you look at the summa of Thomas, you'll see that he treats predestination in the doctrine of God as a special application of providence in the summa book 1, chapter 22, still talking about God, the doctrine of God, Thomas deals with providence, and then chapter 23 with predestination. Providence is the bigger category, God plans decrees, brings into action in time, everything that comes to pass. And part of that is the election and reprobation of individuals. So before Calvin, this is the way that it was often done, and after Calvin, it's a way that it's often done. The prime illustration of that would be the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 2 of God, and of the Holy Trinity, and then chapter 3 of God's eternal decrees before we get to creation. It's not an improper order by any means, but it's not the order that Calvin chooses. Calvin, here in 1559, postpones the formal treatment of this doctrine until book 3. Now let's look at something we have seen already. The shifts and additions of material in the five chief Latin editions of the institutes. Don't expect you to be able to read that up there, but I can point out what I'd like for you to see. 1536, 1536, Calvin does treat predestination, which right here. There's no separate section, but it's present in, this is chapter 2 of the chapters, 6 chapters, and 1536. That's the chapter on faith, and this is treatment of the apostles' creed, and down at the end of his treatment of the apostles' creed, he has election and predestination. And then in, this is 1539, we get a separate section. Here it is section 8 in 1539 after Old Testament New Testament. Well, here's repentance, here's justification by faith. Here is his treatment of Old Testament and New Testament, both the likenesses and the differences, and then he comes to predestination and providence. Those two together in 1539, treating predestination first and then providence. And then we come to the additions here, 1543 through 1550, we see that he keeps that order, moves this around a bit later in these additions, but there's still predestination coming first, and then the doctrine of providence. But then notice what happens in 1559. Here's the final addition that we have been reading, quite a dramatic shift in the material in 1559, because then providence, which has followed predestination, is moved up into book 1, and we studied that very early on. When we talked about the doctrine of God, God is creator, and God is the God of providence. And at that point Calvin says, I could have spoken about predestination here, but I'm not yet ready to do that. And where does he put it? Well, he puts it way down here in book 3, toward the end of book 3. So there's some significant shift in his ordering of the material. And Calvin has told us, as you recall, that he was not satisfied with his order, his arrangement until 1559. He was very concerned about that, and it was not until 1559 that he felt that he got it right. So where does it show up? It shows up in soteriology, not in theology proper, shows up in soteriology, the way in which we receive the grace of Christ. I think back to book 3, Holy Spirit, faith, repentance, justification, prayer, and just before soteriology comes the election.
Calvin, I think, is very aware of what he's doing here. It's not just a place to put this doctrine because he has to treat it some place, but he puts it under salvation within the context of the Christian line. Remember the last part of justification was the freedom of the Christian. And then from that he moves into prayer, and from prayer he moves into election, which at least gives us a hint that election in Calvin, this doctrine of election, Calvin intends for us to understand it within the context of the experience of the Christian life. It's really linked to Christian living, it's part of Christian living, and that's where we should put it, or can put it. Calvin is not going to say you can't talk about this doctrine in any other context, but in the institute, this is where he would like for it to function. I had not been aware of what seems to be a very nice connection between prayer and election until reading through this material again this time. Remember 320, book 3, chapter 20, true prayer, and as we think about it, as we try to sum up what Calvin said in that long chapter, we could say something like this that prayer cast away all thought of our own glory and worth and self assurance, and in humility gives glory completely to God. Because Calvin stresses humility, sincerity, all of those topics related to prayer, we can't be proud and boastful and pray at the same time. That's why we can kneel to pray, because it sets forth the fact that God is everything, and everything we receive, we receive from His good hand. Then you move into election, and it teaches the same thing, the gratuitousness of God's grace and our total emptiness before Him. So there's not a real jolt going from prayer to election, unless you had read carefully through chapter 20, and just looked at the outline. I think these are two quite different topics, but one relates to the other. So the function then in Calvin for the doctrine of election is something we need to look at now. I don't think we would want to say that predestination is the central dogma in Calvin. We really haven't found a central dogma. We've found a lot of crucial doctrines. But Calvin doesn't organize his theology around the degrees of God anymore than he organizes his theology around the doctrine of the covenant, although both are essential and crucial to his understanding of theology. I like the quotation that I have put in the syllabus. It comes from Von Dell's book on Calvin. He's quoting someone else, but I think it gets it right. Predestination is a long way from being the center of Calvinism, at least of Calvin's Calvinism. Much rather, it is the last consequence of faith in the grace of Christ, in the presence of the enigma of experience. Now, I'll unpack that sentence for you, but I think it's a profound one. Calvin's treatment of election completes the doctrine of salvation. He's talking about salvation, so tearyology, book three. And he completes it with the doctrine of election. It will be one more final note, eschatology, heaven. So in one sense, that's the conclusion, but even prior to that, there is this great completing doctrine of God's election, which is saying really one thing, and that is salvation is totally of God. So what Calvin is saying in these chapters, salvation is totally of God. This is how he puts it at the beginning. In 321-1, we shall never be clearly persuaded as we ought to be that our salvation flows from the well spring of God's free mercy until we come to know his eternal election. We don't know this doctrine. We're not going to have confidence that God has saved us freely by his mercy. They'll be the temptation to inject a human effort and human dessert into the doctrine of salvation. I like the way Warfiel explains it in an article that he did on Calvin and the Reformation. Warfiel said, when you teach free grace, absolutely free grace, and mean it, you are a predestinarian. So if you're going to teach free grace, really teach free grace, and really mean it, then you have to embrace the doctrine of predestination. We looked earlier at one way in which this doctrine can be taught, and that is to view it as part of the doctrine of God, the decrees of God, not an improper way, but it's not what Calvin chooses to do here. You might say here is an outline of a little chart of what Calvin does. He's talking about grace, which is so tearyology, and an implication of grace is election, and an implication of election is reparation. I'll explain what I mean by that either later today or next time. But context of grace, and if you really teach free grace, Warfiel said in Calvin would agree, and really mean it, then you are a predestinarian. So complete salvation, understood by faith. It's the next point. We need to look at in a writing on this topic, it's called, on the eternal predestination of God, a separate book, the Calvin wrote. So if you want more than you find in the institute, you can turn to Calvin's treatise on the eternal predestination of God, and in that book he says this, so let's take the election, precedes faith as to its divine order, but is understood by faith. So what is he saying there? Let's take the divine order, we have election, first, then faith, God, elects, gives the person faith, chief work of the Holy Spirit, which, produces a believer, regenerates, that's the divine order. You might say God's order. But the human order works the other way. There is the person, whether we want to call that person a believer, at this point or not, maybe debated, certainly not until there is faith, is the person a believer. But let's just say the potential believer, God opens his or her eyes to the truth of the gospel, and there is then faith, and then faith understands election. So what Calvin is saying here is that as we come to the gospel, we see an invitation, we accept it that's faith, and then we realize that our faith was given to us by God who had chosen us from all eternity, that's election. So divine order is going to lead from election to faith to the person, the human order, from the person to faith to election. For us, therefore, faith is the only opening into the doctrine of election. This is what Calvin says in his commentary on John 640, take away faith, and election is mutilated. In other words, you can't just talk about election abstractly. Take away faith, and you damage destroyed the doctrine of election because no one but the Christian can even speak of God's decrees. And then that person only because he knows himself, or she knows herself, as he lacked through faith in Christ. Now, all of that means that by putting this doctrine where Calvin puts it, it's moved outside the realm of debate, metaphysical thought, and debate as to its fairness, for instance, to the experience of the Christian. See, if you put it in book one, and I think this is what Calvin was wrestling with, you put it in book one, here is God, before we even talk about God's creation, we have to talk about God's decrees, and part of the decrees of God would be the election of some and the repubation of others, and that is going to produce a violent reaction from the part of some people who would say, well, that's not fair. That's wrong, if that is the kind of God you're talking about, I wouldn't have nothing to do with the Calvinist God. And normally that is the kind of scenario that develops. But if the doctrine is where Calvin puts it, it functions, you see, in a quite different way, because it functions in the institutes to answer a very specific question, and that question is, where did my faith come from? So it's the Christian who has access to this teaching, and the Christian has access to this teaching for a very specific purpose. You might say that this doctrine is an ex-post facto reflection on how amid the darkness and death of sin, God's grace came to me. Where did my faith come from? And of course the answer that Calvin is going to give us through these chapters is it came from God. God saved me, wasn't my work, wasn't even my faith in the sense of a human work, God gave me that faith through the work of the Holy Spirit, and God saved me. You might thinking in terms of Calvin's order, you might say, Calvin gets a person saved, or that's justification by faith earlier in Book 3. And then you get that person on his or her knees praying, that's chapter 20. And then he asks the question, where did your faith come from? And that's the doctrine of election. And you see, in that context, it's not going to create dispute. The Christian is going to say, came from God. All the glory goes to God, creates humility in me, confidence in me, because I know it's the work of God and not of myself, and all the glory goes to God. So in that context, it's not an issue for argument. It's a call to doxology. Now, you know, it doesn't mean that you can't teach the doctrine of election in various contexts. And I think it's a proper way to do it, as the Westminster Confession of Faith does, to see it as part of the doctrine of God. You could also see it as part of Christology. We are elect in Christ. Big point, Carl Bart makes. And I think there's some wisdom in what Bart does, although he evaporates part of biblical teaching. Or you can see this Calvin does in Book 3 as part of salvation. But I think the point I'd want to make here is, Calvin wanted to be sensitive, pastorally to the people who are going to read the institutes, and he felt this is the best place for these people at this time to come to grips with this teaching. And that's a challenge to us too, particularly to those of you who will become pastors, because it's not only important to preach truly what the Bible says, but to get it in an order sequence that will help people. And you don't have to preach everything every Sunday. Not a good idea, anyway. You know, preach one thing each Sunday, and lead people along step by step. And you might want to keep Calvin's order in mind here, as you plan your preaching, which basically says, for Sunday, you preach in the church to which you're called. It's probably not a good idea to preach on election. Wait a bit. And put it later. B.B. Warfield said this, it is not to cosmical predestination that Calvin's thought turned. Cosmical predestination would be Book 1 predestination, part of the Doctor of God. B.B. says Warfield, rather to that so periodological predestination on which, as a helpless center, needing salvation from the free grace of God, he must rest. Now, another point here, complete salvation. It's understood by faith. It answers the question, where did my faith come from? And it explains experience. Calvin approaches the doctrine when he finally gets to it and introduces it as you recall. He approaches it from the standpoint of a practical question, practical concern. It's a problem, you might say, occasioned by the preaching of the gospel. Gospel is preached. And what happens? Some people accept and some people don't. And how do you explain that? Why does some respond? And others not. And this is how Calvin gets into this doctrine in 321. In actual fact, the covenant of life is not preached equally among all men. Not everybody in the world receives the gospel equally. Some people actually never hear it. Some people hear it every Sunday. So it's not preached equally among all people. And among those to whom it is preached, it does not gain the same acceptance, either constantly or in equal degree. So those that hear it every Sunday, or often some receive it, some don't. In this diversity, Calvin says, the wonderful depth of God's judgment is made known. We'll have to look at that last sentence in more detail, but you see Calvin says in the context of experience, human experience. So this is what happens. Some hear, some don't. Those who hear, some receive, some don't. And Calvin, you might say, solution to that is the doctrine of election. You know, the Arminian solution really doesn't succeed. The Calvinist solution is a difficult one in some ways. We think biblical, but still difficult. The Arminian solution really doesn't take the Arminian off the hook, so to speak. The Arminian would say what? The Arminian would say, God has given grace to everyone. And that universal grace, this is an evangelical Arminian approach like John Wesley held. God gives grace to all universal grace. And that enables everyone, anyone to accept. But that person also has the ability to refuse. So the evangelical Arminian doesn't teach salvation by works. We're dead in sins, and there's nothing we can do unless we receive the grace of God, but everyone receives the grace of God to enable that person to make a response. But does that really help when you think about it? Because so much of the world doesn't hear the gospel, and even though there is that universal grace given, it doesn't seem to be able to come to fruition because the person doesn't know what to do with it. So I can't see that the Arminian solution answers the problem. It's a problem whether person is an Arminian or a Calvinist. Okay, let's get into a description of the doctrine. We've seen where Calvin puts it and its function and how he introduces it. But we need to look at it now in some detail. The doctrine, God's election and reparation can be understood and described with three words. I haven't put those words in the syllabus, but you can add those. I will generally, the outline here, but absolute is one word that we want to focus on. Particular is another word. And it's hard to know what third word to use because I want to talk about double predestination. It's not a word that Calvin used. He talks about election and reparation, but just trying to get three words to sum it up. We'll use absolute particular and double. Absolute is a word that we find continually in Calvin. Just give you a couple of illustrations of this three, twenty, one, five. God adopts some to hope of life and sentences others to eternal death. Absolute statement. The God adopts some to life and sentences others to death. It's a definition of election and reparation. In that same section, three, twenty, one, five, he talks about God's eternal decree by which he compacted with himself what he will to become of each man. And if we go down to three, twenty, one, seven, we get these words to whom God not only offers salvation, but so assigns it that the certainty of its effect is not in suspense or doubt. And you could add a lot more sentences to those that I have just read. Election God is the author and it is an eternal decree and it focuses on the individual. God's eternal decree by which he compacted with himself what he will to become of each man. So God in his eternal decree has decreed the destiny of each person. If you look into this topic in some detail and you'll find this more in the sermons than in the institutes, you'll see that Calvin often talks about a double election. And you need to understand what he means this by this. He does refer to it in the institutes to three, twenty, one, six, a second more limited degree of election. So what is that all about? A double election, a second or limited degree of election. You'll find an explanation of this in his sermon on Deuteronomy 10, 15 through 17 when he's talking about the national election of Israel. God, he lacks the nation of Israel. God, join all Israel to his family. As Calvin says, inferior members until they cut themselves off. So there is a kind of general election. That's Israel. But those who are part of that election are not eternally saved necessarily because they can cut themselves off. Three, twenty, one, seven, a kind of middle way, Calvin says, between the rejection of mankind and the election of a small number of the godly. So you have all people, then you have this particular type of election of Israel, and then you have another kind of election of the godly. By the way, Calvin does use small number here. He sometimes criticized for teaching that God has elected just a few and the vast majority of the human race goes to hell that not necessarily the way we should explain Calvin, but he does hear talk about a small number of the godly. The Princeton Theologians, Hodg and Warfield wrote, particularly Warfield wrote, on are there a few that will be saved and Warfield's view and Hodg's view was that huge portions of humanity would be saved. But you don't have that in Calvin. You don't have it in turret and if you do have it in the 19th century, Princetonians will get into the reasons why they felt that many people, most people in fact, would be saved. But quotation like this from Calvin 3217, which speaks of a small number of the godly has to be balanced by some other things. Calvin says although I don't think he ever reaches the optimism of Hodg and Warfield that vast numbers will be saved, although Hodg and Warfield have a point in saying, where is the triumph of the cross? And as you look at what the New Testament says at the gospel, it seems to say not just one or two, but it will be a triumph that will be a victory, especially as we come to the book of Revelation. But Calvin does have this more general election and then in 3216 he comes to this statement, a second more limited degree of election. And then 3217, the statement that I quote in the syllabus, to those with whom God makes a covenant, he does not at once give the spirit of regeneration that would enable them to persevere in the covenant to the very end. For a long time I struggled with that sentence because I didn't quite understand what it meant to those with whom God makes a covenant. So here's a covenant, maybe this is the more general election. He does not at once give the spirit of regeneration which seems to say God makes this covenant and then at some later point he gives the spirit of regeneration that enable people to persevere in the covenant to the very end. But what does that mean? Now the Latin word translated by Dr. Battles in our 1559 edition is proteinus. Battles says it means at once, but Anthony Hokema in his covenant of grace in Calvin's teaching argues that the word should be translated invariably. God does not invariably give the spirit of regeneration or we could read it this way to those with whom God makes a covenant, he does not to all of them give the spirit of regeneration. And that makes a lot more sense to me, both in Calvin's context and in my understanding of his theology, God makes a covenant with Israel, but he doesn't give the spirit of regeneration to everyone in Israel. There is an Israel within Israel. There is the elect nation and there are the elect people who are part of that elect nation. Hokema points out that in the French 1560 version, the last French version which Calvin himself wrote translating his own Latin into French. This sentence simply reads this way to those with whom God makes a covenant, he does not give to all of them the spirit of regeneration. So the French version seems to agree with the Hokema translation of proteinus as invariably. I lost on the whole idea of the general election or the general covenant this time. Yeah, two two election, Calvin says, or you could say two covenants, he talks about two elections, general election, and he's talking about Israel. The context is the Old Testament nation of Israel. And he then says within that general covenant, there is a particular covenant or a special election, and it is to those alike people that God gives the spirit of regeneration. See, basically this is just a commentary on what was going on in the Old Testament era. That's right, yes. And you know Paul deals with that too in Romans and it's one of the passages that people use that want to deny individual election. They would say it's national. God chooses Israel has nothing to do with individuals within Israel. So it's Calvin's attempt to say there is a national election, but that doesn't void the individual election. Jacob had I loved and he saw that I hated. Romans also said so that seems to be quite individual. And it's the way Calvin would read the Old Testament. He puts it this way in 3217. God was continually gathering his church from Abraham's children rather than from profane nations. So sets up the covenant with Abraham and then he elects from within that first election, of course all this is done in eternity, past it's not a present tense operation, those that he will give to whom people give the spirit of regeneration. I have found in his commentary on Luke 155 that Calvin says this, God had all mankind in mind from the first. So when he says God is just calling people from Israel, he doesn't forget the rest of humanity. God had all mankind in mind from the first, but now that Christ has come, the adoption has been extended to all nations. So in a sense that universal covenant, that more general covenant, which was made with Israel, could now be viewed as a kind of universal covenant made to all nations. That was my question. That was the issue in the Old Testament where you see more than just Israel believing. So I had always thought about this two-common idea, I wonder what you think of this. Okay. But I was thinking of more particular covenant, truly like persons, extended to many people more than just those that were in Israel because of the Jew or the Gentile or the other person. Is that basically what you're saying in that second quote, but it seemed to happen before Christ. It did, and I'm not sure Calvin deals with that. We'd have to look at some of the Old Testament passages in his commentaries. You know what he's explaining, the difference in similarity between the Covenant's one difference is the Old Testament is for Israel and now the New Testament is for everyone. So we move from one nation to all nations. But I'm sure Calvin is not going to deny that even though God is gathering his elect from Israel, that he has forgotten about or is disinterested in the nations. The quote from Luke 155, God had all mankind in mind from the first, but those are kind of exceptions, rare individuals. But now that Christ has come, the adoption has been extended to all nations. So in a sense, he's not using election, there was using adoption, which seems to say, all nations are adopted. That doesn't mean that every person in all of those nations is regenerated or is elect. But God now gathers from all the world equally in his elect. That's the way I would see it. The general covenant is extended from one nation to all nations. And God gathers his elect from all nations, whereas in the Old Covenant, he gathered his elect from Israel, mostly. I think we have to make a qualification there. Or here's the commentary on Acts 3.25. Although the common election be not effectual in all, so he's using election here, the common election be not effectual in all, yet it may set open a gate for the special elect. In the New Testament period, he's still thinking in terms of common election and special election. That's not a theme that reform faith has developed, and I think we would have to think about whether this is a helpful way of seeing it or not. I just wanted to get into that so that you would understand it to some degree when you get into reading Calvin. Okay, we've talked about election now. God is the author, eternal, individual, despite these references referring to common election. But now we understand what that means, the special election, secret election, or second more limited degree of election focuses on the individual. We come to reprobation, and we'll probably end it with this today, maybe a little further. So I said already, Calvin defines election and reprobation as that degree by which God compacts within himself. I think he means there, there's no extraneous external compulsion, this is God's own decision, not affected by anything but God's will. He compacts within himself what will happen to each person. We could call that double predestination. Not Calvin's term, I think the first person to use that, the idea of double predestination was Isidore of Seville Medieval Theologian who stood in that Augustinian tradition, that full Augustinian tradition. So 3, 21, 5 God adopts some to hope of life and sentences others to eternal death. God's eternal decree by which he compacted within himself what he will to become of each person. 3, 21, 7 God once established by his eternal and unchangeable plan, those whom he long before determined once for all to receive into salvation, and those whom on the other hand he would devote to destruction. So I don't think you can deny that Calvin holds the double predestination even though he doesn't use that term. He doesn't just talk about predestination, election to salvation and ignore the rest, that would be single predestination. Nor does he always, although he can do this, say God elects some and passes over the others' preterition. He will use that language, but he will also use language like in these quotations that I have just given, which emphasize God's positive decree both in terms of the elect and the damn. Now that poses some huge problems, and the one thing we need to say is that Calvin, when he says this, he says it again and again in 3, 23, 7, we get it again. It's that context in which he says the decree is dreadful indeed, sometimes translated awful indeed, but I think we need to understand what it means there. The Latin word is the word that looks like horrible, the decree is horrible indeed, but when Calvin uses that Latin word horrible, 3, 23, 7, he doesn't mean by it, but we generally mean other word horrible. It's not an accusation of God, battle translates it dreadful, and that's probably as good as we can do awesome, would be another possibility. So Calvin certainly doesn't draw back from saying what he thinks he has to say based on his understanding of Scripture, but he doesn't rejoice in it certainly, and he feels the force of what he's saying. It's an awesome, dreadful thing to think of the reprobation of people. Now one thing I want to say about this, and not going to say it today, I think we'll stop here, so I'll be able to start with causing ground next time, causing ground of election and reprobation. We've looked at definitions of election and reprobation, and in reprobation we have God is the author, C. Turnnell is individual, just as we add for election, God is the author, C. Turnnell is individual. But a big question is this, does Calvin give equal ultimacy to both election and reprobation? In other words, as we finish this study next time, we want to answer that question. Do these things hang perfectly balanced, like a mobile that you get for your child's crib and everything is balanced, just know something will decide, something will not decide. Same, is it that these two doctrines are equally ultimate? That's one question. Second, are these two doctrines equally balanced? That's another question. So I won't answer those as yet, but we'll spend some more time next week looking at cause and ground and then the goal of election and reprobation. Some objections to predestination. Uses, how do we use this doctrine? What is it's use for us in our spiritual lives and in our preaching? And then finally, a critique. Calvin, right or wrong, or the point we'll have to think about. Okay, see you next Tuesday.