#monergism

Repentance does not mean to simply stop sinning. Instead, it involves the grace-enabled act of turning to the sole Person with the capacity to empower an individual to overcome sin—namely, Christ. Being a Christian is not a self-salvation project, but rather an appeal to the divine grace of God in Jesus Christ as the sole hope for redemption. Bereft of this divine intervention, human beings would remain perpetually incapable of change, irrespective of therapeutic interventions or the exertion of willpower. Prior to Christ's opening of the heart to the gospel, every individual remains ensnared in inescapable bondage. The necessity of Christ's intervention underscores the futility of attempting self-salvation. Part of the problem is that people are still stuck on trying, at least partly, to save themselves.  As articulated in Luke 18:27, what is impossible for humanity—faith and repentance—is possible with God.

Here is an analogy that helps us further understand the nature of repentance:

Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

Just as you don't need a doctor unless you are sick, similarly, you don't need a Savior unless you are a sinner. Christ's mission is to save those who recognize themselves as sinners in need of redemption. By nature, humans are inclined toward pride, resisting the admission of their status as rebellious sinners who require rescue. In the context of the aforementioned quotation, the Pharisees interrogate Jesus about his association with tax collectors and sinners, believing themselves to be more righteous. However, this self-righteousness ultimately exposes them as individuals who fail to recognize their own sinfulness and need for grace. Instead, they remain trapped in a cycle of pride, erroneously believing that they merit God's favor.

Calvin’s Refutations from His Own Published Work: A Critical Review by Author Eli Kittim

Excerpted from John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian religion, Book 3, ch 23.

——-

Calvin’s god Chooses Whatever He Pleases and We Have No Right to Question his Choices

In Institutes, Book 3, ch 23, Calvin says that god chooses whatever he pleases, and we have no right to question his choices. But isn’t that tantamount to saying that “he does as he pleases” as opposed to acting according to the principles of truth and wisdom? Calvin writes:

Therefore, when it is asked why the Lord did

so, we must answer, Because he pleased.

But if you proceed farther to ask why he

pleased, you ask for something greater and

more sublime than the will of God, and

nothing such can be found. … This, I say,

will be sufficient to restrain any one who

would reverently contemplate the secret

things of God.

Yet isn’t that precisely what Calvin is doing? Inquiring into the “the secret things of God”? Calvin’s argument can be summarized as follows: men are, by nature, wicked, so if god has predestined some to eternal hellfire, why do they complain? They deserve it. He exclaims:

Accordingly, when we are accosted in such

terms as these, Why did God from the first

predestine some to death, when, as they

were not yet in existence, they could not

have merited sentence of death? let us by

way of reply ask in our turn, What do you

imagine that God owes to man, if he is

pleased to estimate him by his own nature?

As we are all vitiated by sin, we cannot but

be hateful to God, and that not from

tyrannical cruelty, but the strictest justice.

But if all whom the Lord predestines to

death are naturally liable to sentence of

death, of what injustice, pray, do they

complain?

He continues his thought that even though god condemned them to hellfire long before they were even born, or had done anything to warrant such an outcome, they nevertheless deserve it and should not complain. Calvin says:

Should all the sons of Adam come to

dispute and contend with their Creator,

because by his eternal providence they

were before their birth doomed to perpetual

destruction, when God comes to reckon

with them, what will they be able to mutter

against this defense? If all are taken from a

corrupt mass, it is not strange that all are

subject to condemnation. Let them not,

therefore, charge God with injustice, if by

his eternal judgment they are doomed to a

death to which they themselves feel that

whether they will or not they are drawn

spontaneously by their own nature.

But if this decree was foreordained by an absolutely sovereign god even before people were born and prior to having committed any transgressions, why are they held accountable for their sins? It appears to be a contradiction. Curiously enough, John Calvin,

admit[s] that by the will of God all the sons

of Adam fell into that state of wretchedness

in which they are now involved; and this is

just what I said at the first, that we must

always return to the mere pleasure of the

divine will, the cause of which is hidden in

himself.

So he admits that we all sinned “by the will of God” and that god does as he pleases, yet he concludes: who are we to question god’s decisions? But is this a proper explanation of predestination that fully justifies god’s justice, or is it rather an incoherent and unsatisfactory answer? Calvin asserts:

They again object, Were not men

predestinated by the ordination of God to

that corruption which is now held forth as

the cause of condemnation? If so, when

they perish in their corruptions they do

nothing else than suffer punishment for that

calamity, into which, by the predestination

of God, Adam fell, and dragged all his

posterity headlong with him. Is not he,

therefore, unjust in thus cruelly mocking his

creatures? … For what more

seems to be said here than just that the

power of God is such as cannot be

hindered, so that he can do whatsoever he

pleases?

Calvin says “How could he who is the Judge of the world commit any unrighteousness?” But Calvin doesn’t explain how that is so except by way of assumptions, which are based on the idea that god acts as he pleases and does as he wills. But that’s circular reasoning. It’s tantamount to saying that something is true because I assume that it is, without any proof or justification that it is true. It’s a fallacious argument. Calvin argues thusly:

It is a monstrous infatuation in men to seek

to subject that which has no bounds to the

little measure of their reason. Paul gives the

name of elect to the angels who maintained

their integrity. If their steadfastness was

owing to the good pleasure of God, the

revolt of the others proves that they were

abandoned. Of this no other cause can be

adduced than reprobation, which is hidden

in the secret counsel of God.

Reprobation, according to Calvin, is based on the notion “that not all people have been chosen but that some have not been chosen or have been passed by in God's eternal election.” But if no one deserves the merits of salvation, and if no one obeys the will of god except by god’s grace, then how is god’s election justified? Calvin’s response that it’s justified because god is just is not an explanation: it is a tautological redundancy. Calvin’s reply would be: god decided not to save everybody, and who are we to criticize him? Unfortunately, that’s not an adequate or satisfactory answer.

God’s decision to save some people is called election, and his decision not to save other people is called preterition. According to Calvinism, god chooses to bypass sinners by not granting them belief, which is equivalent, in a certain sense, to creating unbelief (by omission) in them. In other words, god chooses to save some, but not others. And it pleases him to do so.

Is this truly the love of Christ that is freely offered to all? By contrast, according to Scripture, God wishes to save everyone without exception (1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9; Ezekiel 18:23; Matthew 23:37). When Matthew 22.14 says, “For many are called, but few are chosen,” it clearly shows that those that are not chosen are still “called.” It doesn’t mean that god did not choose them for salvation. It means they themselves chose to decline the offer of their own accord. How can one logically argue that god wants all people to be saved but only chooses to save some of them? It is a contradiction in terms. And then to attribute this injustice and inequality to what appears to be an “arrogant” god who does as he pleases is dodging the issue.

Biblical Predestination Doesn’t Imply god’s Sovereignty But God’s Foreknowledge

Calvinists employ Ephesians 1.4-5 to prove that god clearly elected to save some (and not to save others) before the foundation of the world. But that is a misinterpretation. The entire Bible rests on God’s foreknowledge, his ability to see into the future: “declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done” (Isa. 46.10; cf. Jn 16.13; Rom. 1.2; Acts 2.22-23; 10.40-41). In other words, God did not choose to save some and not to save others. Rather, through his *foreknowledge* he already knew (or foreknew) who would accept and who would decline his offer. That’s why Rom. 8.29 (BLB) says, “because those whom He foreknew, He also predestined.” This explanation is consistent with God’s sovereignty and man’s free will, as well as with the justice and righteousness of God! It is reprehensible to suggest that god would choose by himself who would be eternally saved and who would be eternally condemned. That would not be a fair, just, and loving god. However, Calvin rejects prescience on account “that all events take place by his [god’s] sovereign appointment”:

If God merely foresaw human events, and

did not also arrange and dispose of them at

his pleasure, there might be room for

agitating the question, how far his

foreknowledge amounts to necessity; but

since he foresees the things which are to

happen, simply because he has decreed

that they are so to happen, it is vain to

debate about prescience, while it is clear

that all events take place by his sovereign

appointment.

So, Calvin ultimately places all responsibility and accountability on god, who has foreordained all events “by his sovereign appointment.” But if hell was prepared for the devil and his angels (Mt 25.41), and if god is held accountable for orchestrating everything, then the devil cannot be held morally responsible for all his crimes against humanity. Therefore, according to Calvinism, it would logically follow that god is ultimately responsible for evil, which would implicate himself to be ipso facto evil! There’s no way to extricate god from that logical conclusion.

god Created Evil at his Own Pleasure

In Calvin’s view, god decreed that Adam should sin. In other words, god decrees all sin, which is a sign of his omnipotence and will. How revolting! He writes:

They deny that it is ever said in distinct

terms, God decreed that Adam should

perish by his revolt. As if the same God, who

is declared in Scripture to do whatsoever he

pleases, could have made the noblest of his

creatures without any special purpose.

They say that, in accordance with free-will,

he was to be the architect of his own

fortune, that God had decreed nothing but

to treat him according to his desert. If this

frigid fiction is received, where will be the

omnipotence of God, by which, according to

his secret counsel on which every thing

depends, he rules over all?

Invariably, Calvin places the blame indirectly on god. Calvin holds to an uncompromising hard determinism position, without the slightest possibility of free will, by claiming that even god’s foreknowledge is “ordained by his decree”:

it is impossible to deny that God foreknew

what the end of man was to be before he

made him, and foreknew, because he had

so ordained by his decree.

If this isn’t an evil doctrine I don’t know what is. Calvin unabashedly declares that god created evil in the world “at his own pleasure.” He writes:

God not only foresaw the fall of the first

man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but

also at his own pleasure arranged it.

Wasn’t Satan the one who supposedly arranged it? Hmm, now I’m not so sure … If god is the author of evil, why would he involve Satan in this script? In fact, Calvin insists that the wicked perish not because of god’s permission but because of his will. He says that “their perdition depends on the predestination of God … The first man fell because the Lord deemed it meet that he should: why he deemed it meet, we know not.” What a dreadful thing to say. It’s as if Calvin was under the inspiration of Satan, teaching “doctrines of demons” (1 Tim. 4.1 NKJV). Calvin writes:

Here they recur to the distinction between

will and permission, the object being to

prove that the wicked perish only by the

permission, but not by the will of God. But

why do we say that he permits, but just

because he wills? Nor, indeed, is there any

probability in the thing itself--viz. that man

brought death upon himself merely by the

permission, and not by the ordination of

God; as if God had not determined what he

wished the condition of the chief of his

creatures to be. I will not hesitate, therefore,

simply to confess with Augustine that the

will of God is necessity, and that every thing

is necessary which he has willed.

Calvin attempts to show that there’s no contradiction in his statement but, instead of providing logical proof, he once again resorts to circular reasoning, namely, that the accountability rests with an authoritarian god who does as he pleases:

There is nothing inconsistent with this when

we say, that God, according to the good

pleasure of his will, without any regard to

merit, elects those whom he chooses for

sons, while he rejects and reprobates

others.

Instead of admitting that this is his own wicked view of god, which certainly deserves rebuke and criticism, he suggests that this is the way god really is. In other words, he indirectly blames god by way of compliments. By insisting on god’s Sovereignty and omnipotence, he sets god up to take the blame for everything. Yet in his evasive and largely indefensible argument, he ends up justifying the seemingly “capricious” acts of god by saying that god is still just:

Wherefore, it is false and most wicked to

charge God with dispensing justice

unequally, because in this predestination he

does not observe the same course towards

all. … he is free from every accusation; just

as it belongs to the creditor to forgive the

debt to one, and exact it of another.

Conclusion

Just because God set the universe in motion doesn’t mean that every detail therein is held ipso facto to be caused by him. God could still be sovereign and yet simultaneously permit the existence of evil and free will. This is not a philosophical contradiction (see Compatibilism aka Soft determinism).

The Calvinist god is not fair. He does as he pleases. He creates evil and chooses who will be saved and who will be lost. He is neither trustworthy nor does he equally offer unconditional love to all! In fact, this view is more in line with the capricious gods of Greek mythology than with the immutable God of the Bible.

Calvin’s deity is surprisingly similar to the god of the Gnostics, who was responsible for all instances of falsehood and evil in the world! This is the dark side of a pagan god who doesn’t seem to act according to the principles of truth and wisdom but according to personal whims. With this god, you could end up in hell in a heartbeat, through no fault of your own. Therefore, Calvin’s god is more like Satan!

This is certainly NOT the loving, trustworthy, and righteous God of the Bible in whom “There is no evil” whatsoever (Ps 92.15 NLT; Jas. 1.13). Calvin’s god is not “the God of truth” (Isa. 65.16; cf. Jn 17.17), who “never lies” (Tit. 1.1-2), and who is all-good, sans evil (cf. Ps 106.1; 135.3; Nah. 1.7; Mk 10.18). Calvin’s theology does not square well with the NT notion “that God is light and in him there is no darkness at all” (1 Jn 1.5 NRSV)!

Thus, Calvin’s argument is not only fallacious, unsound, and unbiblical, but also completely disingenuous. For if “life and death are fixed by an eternal and immutable decree of God,” including the prearrangement of sin “at his own pleasure,” as Calvin asserts, then “to charge God with dispensing justice unequally” is certainly a valid criticism! Calvin harshly accused his critics of promulgating blasphemies, but little did he realize the greater blasphemies and abominations that he himself was uttering! A case in point is that he makes God the author of sin!