survey of
 Institutes of The Christian Religion
by John Calvin
 Lesson Twelve
the third on Book III, covering chapters 21-24
 Election and Predestination
Adult Education Class for RMPCA,
class begins May 9, 2004
stored on the net at: http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/lesson12_essay.html
date shared: July 25, 2004


Introduction:
There appears to be two fundamentally different ways of arguing, of trying to persuade people. They correspond to the two major types of reasoning: inductive and deductive. Inductive is by making reference to a common principle we share, i can try to tie something new to you(which i am trying to persuade you is true and important), into something you already believe to be true, this a higher order statement, for example, "all men are created equal." For this to work, you must believe the principle in nearly the same way as i am using it(oftentimes sharing not just this one principle but rather an entire system or extensive subsystem). The other way of arguing is "from the facts", deductively, by making reference to a shared body of facts, or lower order data, and convincing you with either the quantity, or quality, or consilence of these facts to the new idea i want you to share and believe. Most persuasion is in fact a combination of both techniques at the same time, a mixture, an amalgam.

Now what does this have to do with Institutes? Well, Calvin is like 80% inductive and 20% deductive arguing throughout Institutes, until he arrives at these chapters, and then he switches, throughout this section he is like 80% deductive and 20% inductive. You can prove it to yourself by a quick count of Bible verses and quotations from Augustine,  far fewer than we are accustomed to. Why? Partly the complexity of the issues has very few verses that talk about the whole thing so the data is sparse, but mostly there is a conscious building up of doctrine by abstractive levels until you reach a point where the whole system is sufficient to prove the point of election. This would help explain why the doctrine is so controversial as well, because most people do not accept the higher level principles we have been learning these last few months. Since they don't share the system, trying to tie to principles fails due to lack of shared higher level principles. This is precisely the problem of trying to discuss big issues with someone who doesn't subscribe to the Westminster Confession, you find yourself at a loss to explain some very high level thoughts which you would usually do in reference to several points from the confession.

 But mostly i think it is because the issue is best seen, and easiest proved by reference to general principles, in particular, to the attributes of God. This is Calvin's main thread in the argument, election demonstrates both the mercy and justice of God, and it is to these he returns repeatedly throughout the discussion. There is another interesting thing to notice before entering into the writing itself. What is it that is driving Calvin? The silver thread, Calvin as Pastor-Teacher. For he is conscious that not all who hear him preach are immediately converted --why? This is something he needs to explain not just to himself and the company of pastors, why God's word should be ineffective, but needs systematic explanation to the church at large. And the flipside, someone who hears and becomes a Christian asks Pastor Calvin, why me, why not my husband or my son? It is these pastoral concerns that drive this discussion, Calvin is NOT an ivory tower theologian he is struggling with doctrine as a matter of life and death within his congregation, and election is the ultimate in assurance and explanatory power.  It is built into Calvin's very definition of faith, assurance that you are in the relationship of adopted child to the Creator of this universe, safely and confidently His. So as we read these abstractions keep these two issues in mind, how Calvin argues from facts or principles, and how the doctrine leads into assurance of faith and the explanation of  why some believe and most do not.


Abstracted/Abridged Institutes:

CHAPTER 21
ETERNAL ELECTION, BY WHICH GOD HAS PREDESTINED SOME TO SALVATION, OTHERS TO DESTRUCTION

(Importance of the doctrine of predestination excludes both presumption and reticence in speaking of it, 1-4)
1. NECESSITY AND BENEFICIAL EFFECT OF THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION; DANGER OF CURIOSITY

In actual fact, the covenant of life is not preached equally among all men, and among those to whom it is preached, it does not gain the same acceptance either constantly or in equal degree. In this diversity the wonderful depth of God’s judgment is made known. For there is no doubt that this variety also serves the decision of God’s eternal election. If it is plain that it comes to pass by God’s bidding that salvation is freely offered to some while others are barred from access to it, at once great and difficult questions spring up, explicable only when reverent minds regard as settled what they may suitably hold concerning election and predestination. A baffling question this seems to many. For they think nothing more inconsistent than that out of the common multitude of men some should be predestined to salvation, others to destruction.  But how mistakenly they entangle themselves will become clear in the following discussion. Besides, in the very darkness that frightens them not only is the usefulness of this doctrine made known but also its very sweet fruit. We shall never be clearly persuaded, as we ought to be, that our salvation flows from the wellspring of God’s free mercy until we come to know his eternal election, which illumines God’s grace by this contrast: that he does not indiscriminately adopt all into the hope of salvation but gives to some what he denies to others.
...

 First, then, let them remember that when they inquire into predestination they are penetrating the sacred precincts of divine wisdom. If anyone with carefree assurance breaks into this place, he will not succeed in satisfying his curiosity and he will enter a labyrinth from which he can find no exit. For it is not right for man unrestrainedly to search out things that the Lord has willed to be hid in himself, and to unfold from eternity itself the sublimest wisdom, which he would have us revere but not understand that through this also he should fill us with wonder. He has set forth by his Word the secrets of his will that he has decided to reveal to us. These he decided to reveal in so far as he foresaw that they would concern us and benefit us.

2. DOCTRINE OF PREDESTINATION TO BE SOUGHT IN SCRIPTURE ONLY

 “We have entered the pathway of faith,” says Augustine, “let us hold steadfastly to it. It leads us to the King’s chamber, in which are hid all treasures of knowledge and wisdom. For the Lord Christ himself did not bear a grudge against his great and most select disciples when he said: ‘I have... many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now’ [John 16:12]. We must walk, we must advance, we must grow, that our hearts may be capable of those things which we cannot yet grasp. But if the Last Day finds us advancing, there we shall learn what we could not learn here.” If this thought prevails with us, that the Word of the Lord is the sole way that can lead us in our search for all that it is lawful to hold concerning him, and is the sole light to illumine our vision of all that we should see of him, it will readily keep and restrain us from all rashness. For we shall know that the moment we exceed the bounds of the Word, our course is outside the pathway and in darkness, and that there we must repeatedly wander, slip, and stumble. Let this, therefore, first of all be before our eyes: to seek any other knowledge of predestination than what the Word of God discloses is not less insane than if one should purpose to walk in a pathless waste [cf. Job 12:24], or to see in darkness. ...

 3. THE SECOND DANGER: ANXIOUS SILENCE ABOUT THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION

There are others who, wishing to cure this evil, all but require that every mention of predestination be buried; indeed, they teach us to avoid any question of it, as we would a reef.  Even though their moderation in this matter is rightly to be praised, because they feel that these mysteries ought to be discussed with great soberness, yet because they descend to too low a level, they make little progress with the human understanding, which does not allow itself to be easily restrained. Therefore, to hold to a proper limit in this regard also, we shall have to turn back to the Word of the Lord, in which we have a sure rule for the understanding. For Scripture is the school of the Holy Spirit, in which, as nothing is omitted that is both necessary and useful to know, so nothing is taught but what is expedient to know. Therefore we must guard against depriving believers of anything disclosed about predestination in Scripture, lest we seem either wickedly to defraud them of the blessing of their God or to accuse and scoff at the Holy Spirit for having published what it is in any way profitable to suppress. Let us, I say, permit the Christian man to open his mind and ears to every utterance of God directed to him, provided it be with such restraint that when the Lord closes his holy lips, he also shall at once close the way to inquiry. The best limit of sobriety for us will be not only to follow God’s lead always in learning but, when he sets an end to teaching, to stop trying to be wise. ...

5. PREDESTINATION AND FOREKNOWLEDGE OF GOD; THE ELECTION OF ISRAEL

No one who wishes to be thought religious dares simply deny predestination, by which God adopts some to hope of life, and sentences others to eternal death. But our opponents, especially those who make foreknowledge its cause, envelop it in numerous petty objections. We, indeed, place both doctrines in God, but we say that subjecting one to the other is absurd.
When we attribute foreknowledge to God, we mean that all things always were, and perpetually remain, under his eyes, so that to his knowledge there is nothing future or past, but all things are present. And they are present in such a way that he not only conceives them through ideas, as we have before us those things which our minds remember, but he truly looks upon them and discerns them as things placed before him. And this foreknowledge is extended throughout the universe to every creature. We call predestination  God’s eternal decree, by which he compacted with 415 himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others. Therefore, as any man has been created to one or the other of these ends, we speak of him as predestined to life or to death.
...

 Be this as it may, let those now come forward who would bind God’s election either to the worthiness of men or to the merit of works. Since they see one nation preferred above all others, and hear that God was not for any reason moved to be more favorably inclined to a few, ignoble— indeed, even wicked and stubborn—men, will they quarrel with him because he chose to give such evidence of his mercy? But they shall neither hinder his work with their clamorous voices nor strike and hurt his righteousness by hurling the stones of their insults toward heaven. Rather, these will fall back on their own heads! Also, the Israelites are recalled to this principle of a freely given covenant  when thanks are to be given to God, or when hope is to be aroused for the age to come. “He has made us and not we ourselves,” says the prophet, “we are his people and the sheep of his pastures.” [Psalm 100:3; cf. Comm. and Psalm 99:3, Vg.] The negative, which is added to exclude “ourselves,” is not superfluous, since by it they may know that God is not only the Author of all good things in which they abound but has derived the cause from himself, because nothing in them was worthy of so great honor. ...

6. THE SECOND STAGE: ELECTION AND REPROBATION OF INDIVIDUAL ISRAELITES

...But I had good reason to say that here we must note two degrees, for in the election of a whole nation God has already shown that in his mere generosity he has not been bound by any laws but is free, so that equal apportionment of grace is not to be required of him. The very inequality of his grace proves that it is free. For this reason, Malachi emphasizes Israel’s ungratefulness, because, while not only chosen from the whole human race but also separated out of a holy house as his own people, they faithlessly and impiously despise God, their beneficent Father....

7. THE ELECTION OF INDIVIDUALS AS ACTUAL ELECTION 

...It is easy to explain why the general election of a people is not always firm and effectual: 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. Rather, the outward change, without the working of inner grace, which might have availed to keep them, is intermediate between the rejection of mankind and the election of a meager number of the godly. The whole people of Israel has been called “the inheritance of God” [Deuteronomy 32:9; 1 Kings 8:51; Psalm 28:9; 33:12; etc.], yet many of them were foreigners. But because God has not pointlessly covenanted that he would become their Father and Redeemer, he sees to his freely given favor rather than to the many who treacherously desert him. Even through them his truth was not set aside, for where he preserved some remnant for himself, it appeared that his calling was “without repentance” [Romans 11:29]. For the fact that God was continually gathering his church from Abraham’s children rather than from profane nations had its reason in his covenant, which, when violated by that multitude, he confined to a few that it might not utterly cease. In short, that adoption of Abraham’s seed in common was a visible image of the greater benefit that God bestowed on some out of the many. This is why Paul so carefully distinguishes the children of Abraham according to the flesh from the spiritual children who have been called after the example of Isaac [Galatians 4:28]. Not that it was a vain and unprofitable thing simply to be a child of Abraham; such could not be said without dishonoring the covenant! No, God’s unchangeable  plan, by which he predestined for himself those whom he willed, was in fact intrinsically effectual unto salvation for these spiritual offspring alone. But I advise my readers not to take a prejudiced position on either side until, when the passages of Scripture have been adduced, it shall be clear what opinion ought to be held.

SUMMARY SURVEY OF THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION

As Scripture, then, clearly shows, we say that 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. We assert that, with respect to the elect, this plan was founded upon his freely given mercy, without regard to human worth; but by his just and irreprehensible but incomprehensible judgment he has barred the door of life to those whom he has given over to damnation. Now among the elect we regard the call as a testimony of election. Then we hold justification another sign of its manifestation, until they come into the glory in which the fulfillment of that election lies. But as the Lord seals his elect by call and justification, so, by shutting off the reprobate from knowledge of his name or from the sanctification of his Spirit, he, as it were, reveals by these marks what sort of judgment awaits them. Here I shall pass over many fictions that stupid men have invented to overthrow predestination. They need no refutation, for as soon as they are brought forth they abundantly prove their own falsity. I shall pause only over those which either are being argued by the learned or may raise difficulty for the simple, or which impiety speciously sets forth in order to assail God’s righteousness.

CHAPTER 22
CONFIRMATION OF THIS DOCTRINE FROM SCRIPTURAL TESTIMONIES
(Election is not from foreknowledge of merit but is of God’s sovereign purpose, 1-6)

1. ELECTION VS. FOREKNOWLEDGE OF MERITS

Many persons dispute all these positions which we have set forth, especially the free election of believers; nevertheless, this cannot be shaken. For generally these persons consider that God distinguishes among men according as he foresees what the merits of each will be.Therefore, he adopts as sons those whom he foreknows will not be unworthy of his grace; he appoints to the damnation of death those whose dispositions he discerns will be inclined to evil intention and ungodliness. By thus covering election with a veil of foreknowledge, they not only obscure it but feign that it has its origin elsewhere, and this commonly accepted notion is not confined to the common folk; important authors of all periods have held it.  This I frankly confess so that no one may assume that if their names be quoted against us, our case will be greatly damaged. For God’s truth is here too sure to be shaken, too clear to be overwhelmed by men’s authority.

If they shift the argument to individual persons where they find the inequality more objectionable, they ought at least so to tremble at the example of Christ as not to prate so irresponsibly about this lofty mystery. He is conceived a mortal man of the seed of David. By what virtues will they say that he deserved in the womb itself to be made head of the angels, only-begotten Son of God, image and glory of the Father, light, righteousness, and salvation of the world [cf. Hebrews 1:2 ff.]? Augustine wisely notes this: namely, that we have in the very Head of the church the clearest mirror of free election that we who are among the members may not be troubled about it; and that he was not made Son of God by righteous living but was freely given such honor so that he might afterward share his gifts with others. If here anyone should ask why others were not as he was—or why all of us are separated from him by such a long distance—why all of us are corrupt, while he is purity itself, such a questioner would display not only his madness but with it also his shamelessness. But if they willfully strive to strip God of his free power to choose or reject, let them at the same time also take away what has been given to Christ.

Now it behooves us to pay attention to what Scripture proclaims of every person. When Paul teaches that we were chosen in Christ “before the creation of the world” [Ephesians 1:4a], he takes away all consideration of real worth on our part, for it is just as if he said: since among all the offspring of Adam, the Heavenly Father found nothing worthy of his election, he turned his eyes upon his Anointed, to choose from that body as members those whom he was to take into the fellowship of life. ...

2. ELECTION BEFORE CREATION AND NOT ASSOCIATED WITH FOREKNOWLEDGE OF MERIT

That the proof may be more complete, it is worthwhile to note the individual parts of this passage [Ephesians 1:4-5], which, coupled together, leave no doubt. Since he calls them “elect,” it cannot be doubted that he is speaking to believers, as he also soon declares; therefore those who misinterpret the word “elect” as confined to the age when the gospel was proclaimed disfigure it with a base fabrication. F613 By saying that they were “elect before the creation of the world” [Ephesians 1:4], he takes away all regard for worth. For what basis for distinction is there among those who did not yet exist, and who were subsequently to be equals in Adam? Now if they are elect in Christ, it follows that not only is each man elected without respect to his own person but also certain ones are separated from others, since we see that not all are members of Christ. Besides, the fact that they were elected “to be holy” [Ephesians 1:4b] plainly refutes the error that derives election from foreknowledge, since Paul declares all virtue appearing in man is the result of election. Now if a higher cause be sought, Paul answers that God has predestined it so, and that this is “according to the good pleasure of his will” [Ephesians 1:5b]. By these words he does away with all means of their election that men imagine in themselves. For all benefits that God bestows for the spiritual life, as Paul teaches, flow from this one source: namely, that God has chosen whom he has willed, and before their birth has laid up for them individually the grace that he willed to grant them.

3. ELECTED TO BE HOLY, NOT BECAUSE ALREADY HOLY
 
... Paul seems afterward further to confirm what he had said when he states: “According to the purpose of his will” [Ephesians 1:5, Vg.], “which he had purposed in himself” [Ephesians 1:9]. For to say that “God purposed in himself” means the same thing as to say that he considered nothing outside himself with which to be concerned in making his decree. Therefore he adds at once that the whole intent of our election is that we should be to the praise of divine grace [cf. Ephesians 1:6]. Surely the grace of God deserves alone to be proclaimed in our election only if it is freely given. Now it will not be freely given if God, in choosing his own, considers what the works of each shall be. We therefore find Christ’s statement to his disciples, “You did not choose me, but I chose you” [John 15:16], generally valid among all believers. There he not only rules out past merits but also indicates his disciples had nothing in themselves for which to be chosen if he had not first turned to them in his mercy. And how is Paul’s statement to be understood, “Who has first given to him, and he shall receive recompense” [Romans 425 11:35]? He means to show that God’s goodness so anticipates men that among them he finds nothing either past or future to win them his favor.

4. ROMANS, CHAPTERS 9 TO 11, AND SIMILAR PASSAGES

 Therefore, in the letter to the Romans, where Paul both reiterates this argument more profoundly and pursues it more at length, he states that “not all who are descendants of Israel are Israelites” [Romans 9:6]. For even though all had been blessed by hereditary right, the succession did not pass to all equally. This discussion arose from the pride and false boasting of the Jewish people. For when they claimed for themselves the name “church,” they wanted belief in the gospel to depend upon their decision. ...

5. THE CASE OF JACOB AND ESAU REFUTES THE ARGUMENT FROM WORKS

What will those who assign some place in election to works, either past or future, use for a pretext to obscure these things? For this is directly to evade the apostle’s contention that the distinction between the brothers depends not upon any basis of works but upon the mere calling of God, because it was established between them before they were born. And their subtlety would not have been hidden from Paul if it had had anything genuine in it. But because he well knew that God could foresee nothing good in man except what he had already determined to bestow by the benefit of his election, he does not resort to that absurd disorder of putting good works before their cause. For we have it from the words of the apostle that the salvation of believers has been founded upon the decision of divine election alone, and that this favor is not earned by works but comes from free calling. We have, as it were, an example  of this thing set before us. Esau and Jacob are brothers, born of the same parents, as  yet enclosed in the same womb, not yet come forth into the light. In them all things are equal, yet God’s judgment of each is different. For he receives one and rejects the other. It was only by right of primogeniture that one excelled the other. Yet even that is disregarded, and what is denied to the elder is given to the younger. Indeed, in other cases also God seems always purposely to have despised the right of the first-born, to deprive the flesh of all reason to boast. Disowning Ishmael, he sets his heart on Isaac [Genesis 21:12]. Setting Manasseh aside, he honors Ephraim more [Genesis 48:20].

6. JACOB’S ELECTION NOT TO EARTHLY BLESSINGS

But suppose someone interrupts me to say that we ought not to conclude from these inferior and slight benefits, concerning the whole of the life to come, that he who has been elevated to the honor of first-born should accordingly be considered as adopted into the inheritance of heaven. For there are very many who do not spare even Paul from the charge that in the testimonies quoted he twisted Scripture to a foreign meaning. I reply as before that the apostle neither slipped through thoughtlessness nor willfully misused the testimonies of Scripture.  But he saw what they cannot bear to consider: that God willed by an earthly symbol to declare Jacob’s spiritual election, which otherwise lay hid in his inaccessible judgment seat. For unless we refer the right of primogeniture granted him to the age to come, it would be an empty and absurd kind of blessing, since from it he obtained nothing but manifold hardships, troubles, sad exile, many sorrows, and bitter cares. Therefore, when Paul saw without doubt that by outward blessing God testified to the blessing, spiritual and unfading, that he had prepared in his Kingdom for his servant, he did not hesitate to seek in the outward blessing evidence to prove the spiritual blessing [cf. Ephesians 1:3 ff.]. We must also bear in mind that the pledge of a heavenly dwelling place was attached to the Land of Canaan. Hence, it ought not to be doubted that Jacob was, with the angels, engrafted into the body of Christ that he might share the same life.

Jacob, therefore, is chosen and distinguished from the rejected Esau by God’s predestination, while not differing from him in merits. If you ask  the reason, the apostle gives this: “For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion’” [Romans 9:15]. And what does this mean, I ask? It is simply the Lord’s clear declaration that he finds in men themselves no reason to bless them but takes it from his mercy alone [Romans 9:16]; therefore the salvation of his own is his own work. Inasmuch as God establishes your salvation in himself alone, why do you descend to yourself? Since he appoints for you his mercy alone, why do you have recourse to your own merits? Seeing that he confines your thought within his mercy alone, why do you turn your attention in part to your own works?

... And he, willing to make himself the free dispenser and judge of this matter, summarily declares that only as it so pleases him will he be merciful to one rather than to another. For when mercy comes to him who seeks it, though he does not indeed suffer refusal, yet he either anticipates or in part acquires for himself the favor for which God claims the praise unto himself.

(Answers to opponents of this basis of election, which also is reprobation, 7-11)
 7. CHRIST’S WITNESS CONCERNING ELECTION

Now let the sovereign Judge and Master give utterance on the whole question. Detecting such great hardness in his listeners that he would be almost wasting words before the crowd, in order to overcome this hindrance he cries out: “All that the Father gives me will come to me” [John 6:37]. “For this is the will of the Father,... that whatever he has given me, I should lose nothing of it.” [John 6:39.] Note that the Father’s gift is the beginning of our reception into the surety and protection of Christ. Perhaps someone will here turn the argument around and object that only those who in faith have voluntarily yielded are considered to be the Father’s own. Yet Christ insists upon this point alone: even though the desertions of vast multitudes shake the whole world, God’s firm plan that election may never be shaken will be more stable than the very heavens. The elect are said to have been the Father’s before he gave them his only-begotten Son. They ask whether by nature. No, those who were strangers he makes his own by drawing them to him. Christ’s words are too clear to be covered up with any clouds of evasion. “No one,” he says, “can come to me unless the Father... draws him... Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me.”  [John 6:44-45.] If all men in general bowed the knee before Christ, election would be general; now in the fewness of believers a manifest diversity appears. Therefore, after Christ declared that the disciples who were given him were the special possession of God the Father [John 17:6], a little later he adds: “I am not praying for the world but for those whom thou hast given me, for they are thine” [John 17:9 p.; see also John 15:19]. Whence it comes about that the whole world does not belong to its Creator except that grace rescues from God’s curse and wrath and eternal death a limited number who would otherwise perish. But the world itself is left to its own destruction, to which it has been destined. Meanwhile, although Christ interposes himself as mediator, he claims for himself, in common with the Father, the right to choose. “I am not speaking,” he says, “of all; I know whom I have chosen.” [John 13:18.] If anyone ask whence he has chosen them, he replies in another passage: “From the world” [John 15:19], which he excludes from his prayers when he commends his disciples to the Father [John 17:9]. This we must believe: when he declares that he knows whom he has chosen, he denotes in the human genus a particular species, distinguished not by the quality of its virtues but by heavenly decree.

 From this we may infer that none excel by their own effort or diligence, seeing that Christ makes himself the Author of election. He elsewhere numbers Judas among the elect, although he “is a devil” [John 6:70]. This refers only to the office of apostle, which, even though it is a clear mirror of God’s favor, as Paul often acknowledges in his own person [e.g., Galatians 1:16; Ephesians 3:7], still does not contain in itself the hope of eternal salvation. Judas, then, could be worse than a devil, since he faithlessly discharged the office of apostle, but Christ does not allow any of those whom he has once for all engrafted into his body to perish [John 10:28]; for in preserving their salvation he will perform what he has promised—namely, he will show forth God’s power, which “is greater than all” [John 10:29].  For what he says elsewhere, “Father,... of those... whom thou hast given me none... is lost but the son of perdition” [John 17:11-12], even though the expression is misused,  involves no ambiguity. To sum up: by free adoption God makes those whom he wills to be his sons; the intrinsic 431 cause of this is in himself, for he is content with his own secret good pleasure.

8. THE CHURCH LATHERS, ESPECIALLY AUGUSTINE, ON GOD’S “FOREKNOWLEDGE”

But Ambrose, Origen, and Jerome held that God distributed his grace among men according as he foresaw that each would use it well. ...

10. THE UNIVERSALITY OF GOD’S INVITATION AND THE PARTICULARITY OF ELECTION

Some object that God would be contrary to himself if he should universally invite all men to him but admit only a few as elect. Thus, in their view, the universality of the promises removes the distinction of special grace; and some moderate men speak thus, not so much to stifle the truth as to bar thorny questions, and to bridle the curiosity of many.  A laudable intention, this, but the design is not to be approved, for evasion is never excusable. But those who insolently revile election offer a quibble too disgusting, an error too shameful. 

 I have elsewhere explained how Scripture reconciles the two notions that all are called to repentance and faith by outward preaching, yet that the spirit of repentance and faith is not given to all. Soon I shall have to repeat some of this.  Now I deny what they claim, since it is false in two ways. For he who threatens that while it will rain upon one city there will be drought in another [Amos 4:7], and who elsewhere announces a famine of teaching [Amos 8:11], does not bind himself by a set law to call all men equally. And he who, forbidding Paul to speak the word in Asia [Acts 16:6], and turning him aside from Bithynia, draws him into Macedonia [Acts 16:7 ff.] thus shows that he has the right to distribute this treasure to whom he pleases. Through Isaiah he still more openly shows how he directs the promises of salvation specifically to the elect: for he proclaims that they alone, not the whole human race without distinction, are to become his disciples [Isaiah 8:16]. Hence it is clear that the doctrine of salvation, which is said to be reserved solely and individually for the sons of the church, is falsely debased when presented as effectually profitable to all.

 Let this suffice for the present: although the voice of the gospel addresses all in general, yet the gift of faith is rare. Isaiah sets forth the cause: that the arm of the Lord has not been revealed to all [Isaiah 53:1]. If he had said that the gospel is maliciously and 434 wickedly despised because many stubbornly refuse to hear it, perhaps this aspect of universal calling would have force. But it is not the prophet’s intention to extenuate men’s guilt when he teaches that the source of the blindness is that the Lord does not deign to reveal his arm to them [Isaiah 53:1]. He only warns that, because faith is a special gift, the ears are beaten upon in vain with outward teaching. Now I should like to know from these actors whether preaching alone, or faith, makes God’s sons. Surely, when it is said that in the first chapter of John: “All who believe in the only-begotten Son of God also become sons of God themselves” [John 1:12], no confused mass is placed there, but a special rank is given to believers, “who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” [John 1:13, Vg.].

 But, they say, there is a mutual agreement between faith and the Word.  This is so wherever there is faith; but for seed to fall among thorns [Matthew 13:7] or on rocky ground [Matthew 13:5] is nothing new, not only because the greater part indeed show themselves obstinately disobedient to God, but because not all have been supplied with eyes and ears. How, then, shall it be consistent that God calls to himself persons who he knows will not come? Let Augustine answer for me: “You wish to argue with me? Marvel with me, and exclaim, ‘O depth!’ Let both of us agree in fear, lest we perish in error.”  Besides, if election, as Paul testifies, is the mother of faith, I turn back upon their head the argument that faith is not general because election is special. For from this series of causes and effects we may readily draw this inference: when Paul states that “we have been supplied with every spiritual blessing... even as he chose us from the foundation of the world” [Ephesians 1:3-4 p.], these riches are therefore not common to all, for God has chosen only whom he willed. This is why Paul in another place commends faith to the elect [Titus 1:1]: that no one may think that he acquires faith by his own effort but that this glory rests with God, freely to illumine whom he previously had chosen. For Bernard rightly says: “Friends listen individually when he also says to them, ‘Fear not, little flock’ [Luke 12:32], for ‘to you has been given to know the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven’ [Matthew 13:11]. Who are they? ‘Those whom he has foreknown and predestined to be conformed to  the image of his Son’ [Romans 8:29 p.], and to whom God’s great and secret plan has become known: ‘The Lord knows those who are his’ [2 Timothy 2:19], but what was known to God has been revealed to men. And, indeed, he does not vouchsafe to others participation in so great a mystery, save to those whom he has foreknown and predestined to become his own.” A little later he concludes: “‘The mercy of God is from everlasting to everlasting upon those who fear him [Psalm 103:17; 102:17, Vg.]. From everlasting because of predestination, to everlasting because of beatification—the one knowing no beginning, the other, no end.”  But why do we need to quote Bernard as a witness, when we hear from the Master’s own lips: “Only those see the Father who are from God” [John 6:46]? By these words he means that all those not reborn of God are astonished at the brightness of his countenance. And indeed, faith is fitly joined to election, provided it takes second place. This order is elsewhere clearly expressed in Christ’s words: “This is the will of my Father, that I should not lose what he has given. This is his will, that everyone who believes in the Son may not perish” [John 6:39-40, freely rendered]. If he willed all to be saved, he would set his Son over them, and would engraft all into his body with the sacred bond of faith. Now it is certain that faith is a singular pledge of the Father’s love, reserved for the sons whom he has adopted. Hence Christ says in another passage: “The sheep follow the shepherd, for they know his voice. But a stranger they will not follow,... for they do not know the voice of strangers” [John 10:4-5, cf. Vg.]. Whence does this distinction arise but from the fact that their ears have been pierced by the Lord? or no man makes himself a sheep but is made one by heavenly grace. Whence also the Lord teaches that our salvation will be forever sure and safe, for it is guarded by God’s unconquerable might [John 10:29]. Accordingly, he concludes that unbelievers are not of his sheep [John 10:26]. That is, they are not of the number of those who, as God promised through Isaiah, were to become disciples [cf. Isaiah 8:16; 54:13]. Now because the testimonies that I have quoted express perseverance, they at the same time attest the unvarying constancy of election.

11. REJECTION ALSO TAKES PLACE NOT ON THE BASIS OF WORKS BUT SOLELY ACCORDING TO GOD’S WILL

Now a word concerning the reprobate,  with whom the apostle is at the same time there concerned. For as Jacob, deserving nothing by good works, is taken into grace, so Esau, as yet undefiled by any crime, is hated [Romans 9:13]. If we turn our eyes to works, we wrong the apostle, as if he did not see what is quite clear to us! Now it is proved that he did not see it, since he specifically emphasizes the point that when as yet they had done nothing good or evil, one was chosen, the other rejected. This is to prove that the foundation of divine predestination is not in works. Then when he raised the objection, whether God is unjust, he does not make use of what would have been the surest and clearest defense of his righteousness: that God recompensed Esau according to his own evil intention. Instead, he contents himself with a different solution, that the reprobate are raised up to the end that through them God’s glory may be revealed. Finally, he adds the conclusion that “God has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills” [Romans 9:18]. Do you see how Paul attributes both to God’s decision alone? If, then, we cannot determine a reason why he vouchsafes mercy to his own, except that it so pleases him, neither shall we have any reason for rejecting others, other than his will. For when it is said that God hardens or shows mercy to whom he wills, men are warned by this to seek no cause outside his will. 

CHAPTER 23
REFUTATION OF THE FALSE ACCUSATIONS WITH WHICH THIS DOCTRINE HAS ALWAYS BEEN UNJUSTLY BURDENED
(Reprobation the concomitant of election and an act of God’s will, 1-3)

1. ELECTION—BUT NO REPROBATION?

Now when human understanding hears these things, its insolence is so irrepressible that it breaks forth into random and immoderate tumult as if at the blast of a battle trumpet.

 Indeed many, as if they wished to avert a reproach from God, accept election in such terms as to deny that anyone is condemned. But they do this very ignorantly and childishly, since election itself could not stand except as set over against reprobation. God is said to set apart those whom he adopts into salvation; it will be highly absurd to say that others acquire by chance or obtain by their own effort what election alone confers on a few. Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children. And men’s insolence is unbearable if it refuses to be bridled by God’s Word, which treats of his incomprehensible plan that the angels themselves adore. However, we have by now been taught  that hardening is in God’s hand and will, just as much as mercy is [Romans 9:14 ff.]. And Paul does not, as do those I have spoken of, labor anxiously to make false excuses in God’s defense; he only warns that it is unlawful for the clay to quarrel with its potter [Romans 9:20]. Now how will those who do not admit that any are condemned by God dispose of Christ’s statement: “Every tree that my... Father has not planted will be uprooted” [Matthew 15:13 p.]? This plainly means that all those whom the Heavenly Father has not deigned to plant as  sacred trees in his field are marked and intended for destruction. If they say this is no sign of reprobation, there is nothing so clear that it can be proved to them.

But if they do not stop wrangling, let sober faith be content with this admonition of Paul’s: that there is no reason to quarrel with God “if desiring,” on the one hand, “to show his wrath and make his power known, he has endured with much patience” and leniency “the vessels of wrath made for destruction” but, on the other hand, “makes known the riches of his glory for the vessels of mercy that he has prepared... for glory” [Romans 9:22-23 p.]. Let readers note that Paul, to cut off occasion for whispering and disparagement, gives the ultimate sovereignty to God’s wrath and might, for it is wicked to subject to our determination those deep judgments which swallow up all our powers of mind. Our adversaries give a worthless answer: that God does not utterly reject those whom he tolerates in leniency but suspends judgment on them, should they perchance repent. ...

2. GOD’S WILL IS THE RULE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS

To the pious and moderate and those who are mindful that they are men, these statements should be quite sufficient. Yet because these venomous dogs spew out more than one kind of venom against God, we shall answer each individually, as the matter requires.

Foolish men contend with God in many ways, as though they held him liable to their accusations. They first ask, therefore, by what right the Lord becomes angry at his creatures who have not provoked him by any previous offense; for to devote to destruction whomever he pleases is more like the caprice of a tyrant than the lawful sentence of a judge. It therefore seems to them that men have reason to expostulate with God if they are predestined to eternal death solely by his decision, apart from their own merit. If thoughts of this sort ever occur to pious men, they will be sufficiently armed to break their force even by the one consideration that it is very wicked merely to investigate the causes of God’s will. For his will is, and rightly ought to be, the cause of all things that are. For if it has any cause, something must precede it, to which it is, as it were, bound; this is unlawful to imagine. For God’s will is so much the highest rule of righteousness that whatever he wills, by the very fact that he wills it, must be considered righteous. When, therefore, one asks why God has so done, we must reply: because he has willed it.  But if you proceed further to ask why he so willed, you are seeking something greater and higher than God’s will, which cannot be found. Let men’s rashness, then, restrain itself, and not seek what does not exist, lest perhaps it fail to find what does exist. This bridle, I say, will effectively restrain anyone who wants to ponder in reverence the secrets of his God. Against the boldness of the wicked who are not afraid to curse God openly, the Lord himself will sufficiently defend himself by his righteousness, without our help, when, by depriving their consciences of all evasion, he will convict them and condemn them.

And we do not advocate the fiction of “absolute might”; because this is profane, it ought rightly to be hateful to us. We fancy no lawless god who is a law unto himself. For, as Plato says, men who are troubled with lusts are in need of law; but the will of God is not only free of all fault but is the highest rule of perfection, and even the law of all laws.  But we deny that he is liable to render an account; we also deny that we are competent judges to pronounce judgment in this cause according to our own understanding. Accordingly, if we attempt more than is permitted, let that threat of the psalm strike us with fear: God will be the victor whenever he is judged by mortal man [Psalm 51. 4; cf. 50. 6, Vg.].

3. GOD IS JUST TOWARD THE REPROBATE

.... As all of us are vitiated by sin, we can only be odious to God, and that not from tyrannical cruelty but by the fairest reckoning of justice. But if all whom the Lord predestines to death are by condition of nature subject to the judgment of death, of what injustice toward themselves may they complain?

Let all the sons of Adam come forward; let them quarrel and argue with their Creator that they were by his eternal providence bound over before their begetting to everlasting calamity. What clamor can they raise against this defense when God, on the contrary, will call them to their account before him? If all are drawn from a corrupt mass, no wonder they are subject to condemnation! Let them not accuse God of injustice if they are destined by his eternal judgment to death, to which they feel—whether they will or not—that they are led by their own nature of itself. How perverse is their disposition to protest is apparent from the fact that they deliberately suppress the cause of condemnation, which they are compelled to recognize in themselves, in order to free themselves by blaming God. But though I should confess a hundred times that God is the author of it—which is very true—yet they do not promptly cleanse away the guilt that, engraved upon their consciences, repeatedly meets their eyes.

(God’s justice not subject to our questioning, 4-7)
4. GOD’S DECREE IS ALSO HIDDEN IN HIS JUSTICE

Again they object: were they not previously predestined by God’s ordinance to that corruption which is now claimed as the cause of condemnation? When, therefore, they perish in their corruption, they but pay the penalties of that misery in which Adam fell by predestination of God, and dragged his posterity headlong after him. Is he not, then, unjust who so cruelly deludes his creatures?  Of course, I admit that in this miserable condition wherein men are now bound, all of Adam’s children have fallen by God’s will. And this is what I said to begin with, that we must always at last return to the sole decision of God’s will, the cause of which is hidden in him. But it does not directly follow that God is subject to this reproach. For with Paul we shall answer in this way: “Who are you, O man, to argue with God? Does the molded object say to its molder, ‘Why have you fashioned me thus? Or does the potter have no capacity to make from the same lump one vessel for honor, another for dishonor?” [Romans 9:20-21].

 They will say that God’s righteousness is not truly defended thus but that we are attempting a subterfuge such as those who lack a just excuse are wont to have. For what else seems to be said here than that God has a power that cannot be prevented from doing whatever it pleases him to do? But it is far otherwise. For what stronger reason can be adduced than when we are bidden to ponder who God is? For how could he who is the Judge of the earth allow any iniquity [cf. Genesis 18:25]? If the execution of judgment properly belongs to God’s nature, then by nature he loves righteousness and abhors unrighteousness. Accordingly, the apostle did not look for loopholes of escape as if he were embarrassed in his argument but showed that the reason of divine righteousness is higher than man’s standard can measure, or than man’s slender wit can comprehend. The apostle even admits that such depth underlies God’s judgments [Romans 11:33] that all men’s minds would be swallowed up. if they tried to penetrate it. But he also teaches how unworthy it is to reduce God’s works to such a law that the moment we fail to understand their reason, we dare to condemn them. That saying of Solomon’s is well known, although few properly understand it: “The great Creator of all  things pays the fool his wages, and the transgressors theirs” [Proverbs 26:10, cf. Geneva Bible]. For he is exclaiming about the greatness of God, in whose decision is the punishment of fools and transgressors, although he does not bestow on them his Spirit. Monstrous indeed is the madness of men, who desire thus to subject the immeasurable to the puny measure of their own reason! Paul calls the angels who stood in their uprightness “elect” [1 Timothy 5:21]; if their steadfastness was grounded in God’s good pleasure, the rebellion of the others proves the latter were forsaken. No other cause of this fact can be adduced but reprobation, which is hidden in God’s secret plan.

5. GOD’S HIDDEN DECREE IS NOT TO BE SEARCHED OUT BUT OBEDIENTLY MARVELED AT

...Why do you, then, accuse him because he does not temper the greatness of his works to your ignorance? As if these things were wicked because they are hidden from flesh! It is known to you by clear evidence that the judgments of God are beyond measure. You know that they are called a “great deep” [Psalm 36:6]. Now consider the narrowness of your mind, whether it can grasp what God has decreed with himself. ...

6. SECOND OBJECTION: THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION TAKES GUILT AND RESPONSIBILITY AWAY FROM MAN

... First of all, what Solomon says ought to be agreed upon among everyone: “God has made everything for himself, even the wicked for the evil day” [Proverbs 16:4, cf. Vg.]. Behold! Since the disposition of all things is in God’s hand, since the decision of salvation or of death rests in his power, he so ordains by his plan and will that among men some are born destined for certain death from the womb, who glorify his name by their own destruction. If anyone should reply that by God’s providence he imposes no necessity upon them but that he has created them in this condition, since he has foreseen their wickedness to come, such a one says something but not everything. The older writers have a habit of using this solution at times but with some hesitation. But the Schoolmen rest upon it as if no objection could be made against it. F652 Indeed, I will freely admit that foreknowledge alone imposes no necessity upon creatures, yet not all assent to this. For there are some who wish it also to be the cause of things. But it seems to me that Valla, a man not otherwise much versed in sacred matters, saw more clearly and wisely, for he showed this contention to be superfluous, since both life and death are acts of God’s will more than of his foreknowledge.  If God only foresaw human events, and did not also dispose and determine them by his decision, then there would be some point in raising this question: whether his foreseeing had anything to do with their necessity. But since he foresees future events only by reason of the fact that he decreed that they take place, they vainly raise a quarrel over foreknowledge, when it is clear that all things take place rather by his determination and bidding.

7. GOD HAS ALSO PREDESTINED THE FALL INTO SIN

... Again I ask: whence does it happen that Adam’s fall irremediably involved so many peoples, together with their infant offspring, in eternal death unless because it so pleased God? Here their tongues, otherwise so loquacious, must become mute. The decree is dreadful indeed, I confess. F654 Yet no one can deny that God foreknew what end man was to have before he created him, and consequently foreknew because he so ordained by his decree. If anyone inveighs against God’s foreknowledge at this point, he stumbles rashly and heedlessly. What reason is there to accuse the Heavenly Judge because he was not ignorant of what was to happen? If there is any just or manifest complaint, it applies to predestination. And it ought not to seem absurd for me to say that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his descendants, but also meted it out in accordance with his own decision. For as it pertains to his wisdom to foreknow everything that is to happen, so it pertains to his might to rule and control everything by his hand. And Augustine also skillfully disposes of this question, as of others: “We most wholesomely confess what we most correctly believe, that the God and Lord of all things, who created all things exceedingly good [cf. Genesis 1:31], and foreknew that evil things would rise out of good, and also knew that it pertained to his most omnipotent goodness to bring good out of evil things rather than not to permit evil things to be... so ordained the life of angels and men that in it he might first of all show what free will could do, and then what the blessing of his grace and the verdict of his justice could do.” 

(God willed, not only permitted, Adam’s fall and the rejection of the reprobate, but with justice, 8-11)
8. NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN GOD’S WILL AND GOD’S PERMISSION!

Here they have recourse to the distinction between will and permission. By this they would maintain that the wicked perish because God permits it, not because he so wills.  But why shall we say “permission” unless it is because God so wills? Still, it is not in itself likely that man brought destruction upon himself through himself, by God’s mere permission and without any ordaining. As if God did not establish the condition in which he wills the chief of his creatures to be! I shall not hesitate, then, simply to confess with Augustine that “the will of God is the necessity of things,”  and that what he has willed will of necessity come to pass, as those things which he has foreseen will truly come to pass. Now if either the Pelagians, or Manichees, or Anabaptists, or Epicureans (for on this issue we have to deal with these four sects) in excuse for themselves and for the wicked, raise by way of objection the necessity by which they are constrained because of divine predestination,  they advance no argument applicable to the cause. For if predestination is nothing but the meting out of divine justice—secret, indeed, but blameless—because it is certain that they were not unworthy to be predestined to this condition, it is equally certain that the destruction they undergo by predestination is also most just. Besides, their perdition depends upon the predestination of God in such a way that the cause and occasion of it are found in themselves. For the first man fell because the Lord had judged it to be expedient; why he so judged is hidden from us. Yet it is certain that he so judged because he saw that thereby the glory of his name is duly revealed.

Where you hear God’s glory mentioned, think of his justice. For whatever deserves praise must be just. Accordingly, man falls according as God’s providence ordains, but he falls by his own fault. A little before, the Lord had declared that “everything that he had made... was exceedingly good” [Genesis 1:31]. Whence, then, comes that wickedness to man, that he should fall away from his God? Lest we should think it comes from creation, God had put his stamp of approval on what had come forth from himself. By his own evil intention, then, man corrupted the pure nature he  had received from the Lord; and by his fall he drew all his posterity with him into destruction. Accordingly, we should contemplate the evident cause of condemnation in the corrupt nature of humanity—which is closer to us—rather than seek a hidden and utterly incomprehensible cause in God’s predestination. And let us not be ashamed to submit our understanding to God’s boundless wisdom so far as to yield before its many secrets. For, of those things which it is neither given nor lawful to know, ignorance is learned;  the craving to know, a kind of madness.

9. SUMMARY REFUTATION OF THE SECOND OBJECTION

Perhaps someone will say that I have not yet brought forward evidence to silence this wicked excuse. But I admit this cannot be so done that impiety will not always growl and mutter. Yet it seems to me that I have said enough to banish not only all reason to gainsay but also all pretext to do so. The reprobate wish to be considered excusable in sinning, on the ground that they cannot avoid the necessity of sinning, especially since this sort of necessity is cast upon them by God’s ordaining. But we deny that they are duly excused, because the ordinance of God, by which they complain that they are destined to destruction, has its own equity— unknown, indeed, to us but very sure. From this we conclude that the ills they bear are all inflicted upon them by God’s most righteous judgment. Accordingly, we teach that they act perversely who to seek out the source of their condemnation turn their gaze upon the hidden sanctuary of God’s plan, and wink at the corruption of nature from which it really springs. God, to prevent them from charging it against himself, bears testimony to his creation. For even though by God’s eternal providence man has been created to undergo that calamity to which he is subject, it still takes its occasion from man himself, not from God, since the only reason for his ruin is that he has degenerated from God’s pure creation into vicious and impure perversity.

12. FOURTH OBJECTION: THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION DESTROYS ALL ZEAL FOR AN UPRIGHT LIFE

To overthrow predestination our opponents also raise the point that, if it stands, all carefulness and zeal for well-doing go to ruin. For who can hear, they say, that either life or death has been appointed for him by God’s eternal and unchangeable decree without thinking immediately that it makes no difference how he conducts himself, since God’s predestination can neither be hindered nor advanced by his effort? Thus all men will throw themselves away, and in a desperate manner rush headlong wherever lust carries them.  Obviously they are not completely lying, for there are many swine that pollute the doctrine of predestination with their foul blasphemies, and by this pretext evade all admonitions and reproofs. God knows what he once for all has determined to do with us: if he has decreed salvation, he will bring us to it in his own time; if he has destined us to death, we would fight against it in vain. 

But Scripture, while it requires us to consider this great mystery with so much more reverence and piety, both instructs the godly to a far different attitude and effectively refutes the criminal madness of these men. For Scripture does not speak of predestination with intent to rouse us to boldness that we may try with impious rashness to search out God’s unattainable secrets. Rather, its intent is that, humbled and cast down, we may learn to tremble at his judgment and esteem his mercy. It is at this mark that believers aim. But the foul grunting of these swine is duly silenced by Paul. They say they go on unconcerned in their vices; for if they are of the number of the elect, vices will not hinder them from being at last brought into life. Yet Paul teaches that we have been chosen to this end: that we may lead a holy and blameless life [Ephesians 1:4]. If election has as its goal holiness of life, it ought rather to arouse and goad us eagerly to set our mind upon it than to serve as a pretext for doing nothing. What a great difference there is between these two things: to cease welldoing because election is sufficient for salvation, and to devote ourselves to the pursuit of good as the appointed goal of election! Away, then, with such sacrileges, for they wickedly invert the whole order of election. 

But they stretch their blasphemies farther when they say that he who has been condemned by God, if he endeavors through innocent and upright life to make himself approved of God [cf. 2 Timothy 2:15], will lose his labor. In this contention they are convicted of utterly shameless falsehood. Whence could such endeavor arise but from election? For whoever are of the number of the reprobate, as they are vessels made for dishonor [cf. Romans 9:21], so they do not cease by their continual crimes to arouse God’s wrath against themselves, and to confirm by clear signs that God’s judgment has already been pronounced upon them—no matter how much they vainly resist it.


CHAPTER 24
ELECTION IS CONFIRMED BY GOD’S CALL; MOREOVER, THE WICKED BRING UPON THEMSELVES THE JUST DESTRUCTION TO WHICH THEY ARE DESTINED

 (The elect are effectually called, and incorporated into the communion of Christ, 1-5)
1. THE CALL IS DEPENDENT UPON ELECTION AND ACCORDINGLY IS SOLELY A WORK OF GRACE

 But to make the matter clearer, we must deal with both the calling of the elect and the blinding and hardening of the wicked.

Of the former I have already said something,  when refuting the error of those who think that the universality of the promises makes all mankind equal. Yet it is not without choice that God by his call manifests the election, which he otherwise holds hidden within himself; accordingly, it may properly be termed his “attestation.” “For those whom he foreknew, he also appointed beforehand to be conformed to the image of his son.” [Romans 8:29.] “Those whom he appointed beforehand, he also called; those whom he called, he also justified” [Romans 8:30] that he might sometime glorify them. Although in choosing his own the Lord already has adopted them as his children, we see that they do not come into possession of so great a good except when they are called; conversely, that when they are called, they already enjoy some share of their election. For this reason, Paul calls the Spirit, whom they receive, both “Spirit of adoption” [Romans 8:15] and the “seal” and “guarantee of the inheritance to come” [Ephesians 1:13-14; cf. 2 Corinthians 1:22; 5:5]. For he surely establishes and seals in their hearts by his testimony the assurance of the adoption to come.

Even though the preaching of the gospel streams forth from the wellspring of election, because such preaching is shared also with the wicked, it cannot of itself be a full proof of election. But God effectively teaches his elect that he may lead them to faith. To this effect we previously quoted from Christ’s own words:  “No other than he who is from God has seen the Father” [John 6:46 p.]. Again: “I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me.” [John 17:6.] In another passage he says: “No one can come to me unless my Father... draws him.” [John 6:44.] Augustine has wisely expounded this passage in these words: “If, as the Truth says, ‘Every man that has learned comes’ [John 6:45], whoever does not come certainly has not learned... It does not, therefore, follow that he who can come actually comes unless he has also willed this and acted upon it. But everyone who has learned from the Father not only is able to come but also comes; and in this result are already present the advantage of the possibility, the affect of the will, and the effect of the action.”  In another place he expresses it even more clearly: “What is the meaning of ‘Every man who has heard and learned from the Father comes unto me’ [John 6:45] except that there is none who hears from the Father, and learns, who comes not to me? For if everyone who has heard from the Father, and has learned, comes, certainly everyone who does not come has not heard from the Father or learned; for if he had heard and learned, he would come... Far removed from carnal sense is this teaching, in which the Father is heard and teaches us to come to the Son.” Shortly after: “This grace, therefore, which is secretly bestowed on human hearts, is not received by any hard heart. It is given for this purpose: that hardness of heart may first be taken away. When, therefore, the Father is heard within... he takes away the heart of stone and gives a heart of flesh [Ezekiel 11:19; 36:26]... He thus makes them children of promise and vessels of mercy, which he has prepared for glory [chapter 13]. Why, then, does he not teach all that they may come to Christ, unless he teaches by mercy all whom he teaches but he teaches not by judgment whom he teaches not? For ‘on whom he will, he has mercy; and whom he will, he hardens’ [Romans 9:18; chapter 14].” 

Therefore, God designates as his children those whom he has chosen, and appoints himself their Father. Further, by calling, he receives them into his family and unites them to him so that they may together be one. But when the call is coupled with election, in this way Scripture sufficiently suggests that in it nothing but God’s free mercy is to be sought. For if we ask whom he calls, and the reason why, he answers: whom he had chosen. Moreover, when one comes to election, there mercy alone appears on every side. Here Paul’s statement truly has significance: “It depends not upon him who wills, or upon him who runs but upon God, who shows mercy” [Romans 9:16]. And it is not as those commonly understand it who divide it between God’s grace and man’s willing and running. For they explain that man’s desire and effort of themselves have no weight unless they are favored by God’s grace; but when they are helped by his blessing, they also have their parts, these men contend, in obtaining salvation.

I prefer to refute their cavil with Augustine’s words rather than with mine. “If the apostle meant nothing else than that it is not a matter of man’s willing or running unless the merciful Lord be present, then it will be permissible to turn the statement around: that it is not a matter of mercy alone unless willing and running be present. But if this is manifestly impious, let us not doubt that the apostle credits everything to the Lord’s mercy, leaving nothing to our will or effort.”  That holy man wrote to this effect. I consider not worth a straw the subtle point they bring in here: that Paul would not have said this unless there had been some effort and some will in us. For he did not consider what was in man, but when he saw that certain men were attributing part of salvation to men’s effort, he simply condemned their error in the first half of the sentence, and in the latter half claimed the whole of salvation for God’s mercy. And what else do the prophets do but continually preach God’s free call?

2. THE MANNER OF THE CALL ITSELF CLEARLY INDICATES THAT IT DEPENDS ON GRACE ALONE

 Besides, even the very nature and dispensation of the call clearly demonstrate this fact, for it consists not only in the preaching of the Word but also in the illumination of the Spirit. We learn in the prophet to what people God offers his Word: “I have shown myself to a people not seeking me; I have openly appeared to those who were not asking me. I have said, ‘Here am I,’ to a nation that did not call on my name” [Isaiah 65:1]. And that the Jews might not regard this kindness as 458 applying only to the Gentiles, he also reminds them whence he took their father Abraham when he deigned to show favor to him: out of the very midst of idolatry, in which with all his people he had been sunk [cf. Joshua 24:2-3]. When he first shines with the light of his Word upon the undeserving, he thereby shows a sufficiently clear proof of his free goodness. Here, then, God’s boundless goodness is already manifesting itself but not to the salvation of all; for a heavier judgment remains upon the wicked because they reject the testimony of God’s love. And God also, to show forth his glory, withdraws the effectual working of his Spirit from them. This inner call, then, is a pledge of salvation that cannot deceive us. To it applies John’s statement: “We recognize that we are his children from the Spirit, which he has given us” [1 John 3:24; cf. chapter 4:13]. But lest the flesh boast that it did at least answer him when he called and freely offered himself, he declares that it has no ears to hear, no eyes to see, unless he makes them. Furthermore, he makes them not according to each person’s gratefulness but according to his election. You have a notable example of this in Luke, where Jews and Gentiles together hear the preaching of Paul and Barnabas. When all have been instructed by the same Word, it is stated that “those who had been ordained to eternal life believed” [Acts 13:48]. With what shamelessness can we deny that the call is free when in it, even to the last part, election alone reigns?

3. FAITH IS THE WORK OF ELECTION, BUT ELECTION DOES NOT DEPEND UPON FAITH

But here we must beware of two errors: for some make man God’s coworker, to ratify election by his consent. Thus, according to them, man’s will is superior to God’s plan. As if Scripture taught that we are merely given the ability to believe, and not, rather, faith itself! Others, although they do not so weaken the grace of the Holy Spirit yet led by some reason or other, make election depend upon faith, as if it were doubtful and also ineffectual until confirmed by faith. Indeed, that it is confirmed, with respect to us, is utterly plain; we have also already seen that the secret plan of God, which lay hidden, is brought to light, provided you understand by this language merely that what was unknown is now verified—sealed, as it were, with a seal. But it is false to say that election  takes effect only after we have embraced the gospel, and takes its validity from this.  We should indeed seek assurance of it from this; for if we try to penetrate to God’s eternal ordination, that deep abyss will swallow us up. But when God has made plain his ordination to us, we must climb higher, lest the effect overwhelm the cause. For when Scripture teaches that we are illumined according as God has chosen us, what is more absurd and unworthy than for our eyes to be so dazzled by the brilliance of this light as to refuse to be mindful of election? In the meantime, I do not deny that to be assured of our salvation we must begin with the Word, and that our confidence ought to be so intent as to call upon God as our Father. For some men, to make sure about God’s plan, which is near us, in our mouth and heart [Deuteronomy 30:14], perversely yearn to flit about above the clouds. This rashness, therefore, must be restrained by the soberness of faith that in his outward Word, God may sufficiently witness his secret grace to us, provided only the pipe, from which water abundantly flows out for us to drink, does not hinder us from according its due honor to the fountain.

5. ELECTION IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD AND RECOGNIZED IN CHRIST ALONE

First, if we seek God’s fatherly mercy and kindly heart, we should turn our eyes to Christ, on whom alone God’s Spirit rests [cf. Matthew 3:17]. If we seek salvation, life, and the immortality of the Heavenly Kingdom, then there is no other to whom we may flee, seeing that he alone is the fountain of life, the anchor of salvation, and the heir of the Kingdom of Heaven. Now what is the purpose of election but that we, adopted as sons by our Heavenly Father, may obtain salvation and immortality by his favor? No matter how much you toss it about and mull it over, you will discover that its final bounds still extend no farther. Accordingly, those whom God has adopted as his sons are said to have been chosen not in themselves but in his Christ [Ephesians 1:4]; for unless he could love them in him, he could not honor them with the inheritance of his Kingdom if they had not previously become partakers of him. But if we have been chosen in him, we shall not find assurance of our election in ourselves; and not even in God the Father, if we conceive him as severed from his Son. Christ, then, is the mirror wherein we must, and without self-deception may, contemplate our own election. For since it is into his body the Father has destined those to be engrafted whom he has willed from eternity to be his own, that he may hold as sons all whom he acknowledges to be among his members, we have a sufficiently clear and firm testimony that we have been inscribed in the book of life [cf. Revelation 21:27] if we are in communion with Christ.

Now he gave us that sure communion with himself, when he testified through the preaching of the gospel that he had been given to us by the Father to be ours with all his benefits [Romans 8:32]. We are said to put on him [Romans 13:14], to grow together into him [Ephesians 4:15], that we may live because he lives. Frequently this doctrine is repeated: that the Father did not spare his only-begotten Son [cf. Romans 8:32; John 3:15] “that whoever believes in  him may not perish” [John 3:16]. But “he who believes in him” is said to have “passed out of death into life” [John 5:24]. In this sense, he calls himself “the bread of life” [John 6:35]; he who eats this bread will never die [John 6:51,58]. He, I say, was our witness that the Heavenly Father will count as his sons all those who have received him in faith. If we desire anything more than to be reckoned among God’s sons and heirs, we have to rise above Christ. If this is our ultimate goal, how insane are we to seek outside him what we have already obtained in him, and can find in him alone? Moreover, since he is the eternal wisdom of the Father, his unchangeable truth, his firm counsel, we ought not to be afraid of what he tells us in his Word varying in the slightest from that will of the Father which we seek. Rather, he faithfully reveals to us that will as it was from the beginning and ever shall be. The practice of this doctrine ought also to flourish in our prayers. For even though faith in election prompts us to call upon God, still, when we frame our prayers, it would be preposterous to thrust this upon God or to bargain upon this condition: “O Lord, if I have been chosen, hear me.” For it is his will that we be content with his promises, and not inquire elsewhere whether he will be disposed to hear us. This prudence will free us from many traps if we know how to apply to a right use what has been rightly written; but let us not inconsiderately draw out hither and thither what ought to be kept within limits.

(Under Christ’s protection the perseverance of the elect is secure: Scripture passages cited in objection interpreted, 6-11)
6. CHRIST BESTOWS UPON HIS OWN THE CERTAINTY THAT THEIR ELECTION IS IRREVOCABLE AND LASTING

The fact that, as we said, the firmness of our election is joined to our calling is another means of establishing our assurance. For those whom Christ has illumined with the knowledge of his name and has introduced into the bosom of his church, he is said to receive into his care and keeping. All whom he receives, the Father is said to have entrusted and committed to him to keep unto eternal life. What would we have? Christ proclaims aloud that he has taken under his protection all whom the Father wishes to be saved [cf.John 6:37,39; 17:6,12]. Therefore, if we desire to know whether God cares for our salvation, let us inquire whether he has entrusted us to Christ, whom he has established as the sole Savior of all his people. If we still doubt whether we have been received by Christ into his care and protection, he meets that doubt when he willingly offers himself as shepherd, and declares that we shall be numbered among his flock if we hear his voice [John 10:3]. Let us therefore embrace Christ, who is graciously offered to us, and comes to meet us. He will reckon us in his flock and enclose us within his fold.

But anxiety about our future state steals in; for as Paul teaches that they are called who were previously chosen [Romans 8:30], so Christ shows that “many are called but few are chosen” [Matthew 22:14]. Indeed, Paul himself also dissuades us from overassurance: “Let him,” he says, “who stands well, take heed lest he fall” [1 Corinthians 10:12]. Again: You are grafted into the people of God? “Be not proud but fear” [Romans 11:20]. For God can cut you off again that he may engraft others [cf. Romans 11:22-23]. Finally, we are taught by this very experience that call and faith are of little account unless perseverance F681 be added; and this does not happen to all. But Christ has freed us from this anxiety, for these promises surely apply to the future: “All that the Father gives me will come to me; and him who will come to me I will not cast out” [John 6:37]. ...

7. HE WHO TRULY BELIEVES CANNOT FALL AWAY

Yet it daily happens that those who seemed to be Christ’s, fall away from him again, and hasten to destruction. Indeed, in that same passage, where he declares that none of those whom the Father had given to him perished, he nevertheless excepts the son of perdition [John 17:12]. True indeed, but it is also equally plain that such persons never cleaved to Christ with the heartfelt trust in which certainty of election has, I say, been established for us. “They went out from us,” says John, “but they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us.” [1 John 2:19.] And I do not deny that they have signs of a call that are similar to those of the elect, but I by no means concede to them that sure establishment of election which I bid believers seek from the word of the gospel. So then, let not such instances induce us at all to abandon a quiet reliance upon the Lord’s promise, where he declares that all by whom he is received in true faith have been given to him by the Father, no one of whom, since he is their guardian and shepherd, will perish [cf. John 3:16; 6:39]. We shall speak of Judas shortly.  Paul [cf.1 Corinthians 10:12] does not discourage Christians from simple confidence but rather from crass and sheer confidence of the flesh, which bears in its train haughtiness, arrogance, and contempt of others, snuffs out humility and reverence for God, and makes one forget grace received. For Paul tells the Gentiles, whom he is teaching, not to vaunt it proudly and inhumanly over the Jews because they have been introduced in place of the latter who have defected [cf. Romans 11:18 ff.]. He also requires fear, not that we may be dismayed and waver but that, as we have stated elsewhere,  in  preparing us humbly to receive God’s grace, our trust in him may in no wise be diminished. Furthermore, he is not speaking to men individually but to the sects generally. For after the church had been divided into two parts, and rivalry gave rise to schism, Paul warned the Gentiles, who were put in the place of a peculiar and holy people, that this ought for them to be reason for fear and modesty. Yet among them many were puffed up, whose empty boasting it was useful to check. But we see elsewhere  that our hope extends into the future, even beyond death, and that nothing is more contrary to its nature than to be doubting what will happen to us.

8. GENERAL AND SPECIAL CALLING [MATTHEW 22:2 FF.]

The statement of Christ “Many are called but few are chosen” [Matthew 22:14] is, in this manner, very badly understood. Nothing will be ambiguous if we hold fast to what ought to be clear from the foregoing: bthat there are two kinds of call. There is the general call, by which God invites all equally to himself through the outward preaching of the word-even those to whom he holds it out as a savor of death [cf. 2 Corinthians 2:16], and as the occasion for severer condemnation. The other kind of call is special, which he deigns for the most part to give to the believers alone, while by the inward illumination of his Spirit he causes the preached Word to dwell in their hearts. Yet sometimes he also causes those whom he illumines only for a time to partake of it; then he justly forsakes them on account of their ungratefulness and strikes them with even greater blindness.

Now since the Lord saw the gospel published far and wide, held in contempt by many, justly valued by few, he describes God to us in the person of a king, who, in giving a solemn feast, sends his heralds round about to invite a great crowd but can obtain acceptance from very few, for each one claims that something prevents him from coming; hence, since they refuse, he is compelled to call in off the crossroads all met there [Matthew 22:2-9]. Up to this point everyone sees that the parable is to be understood of the outward call. He afterward adds that God acts like a good host, who circulates from table to table, affably greeting his guests. But if he finds one not dressed in a wedding garment, he will not allow him, unfitly dressed, to dishonor the festivity of the banquet with his unclean attire [Matthew 22:11-13]. This phrase ought, I admit, to be understood as applying to those who enter the church on profession of faith but not clothed with Christ’s sanctification. ...

10. THE ELECT BEFORE THEIR CALL. THERE IS NO “SEED OF ELECTION”

The elect are gathered into Christ’s flock by a call not immediately at birth, and not all at the same time, but according as it pleases God to dispense his grace to them. But before they are gathered unto that supreme Shepherd, they wander scattered in the wilderness common to all; and they do not differ at all from others except that they are protected by God’s especial mercy from rushing headlong into the final ruin of death. If you look upon them, you will see Adam’s offspring, who savor of the common corruption of the mass. The fact that they are not carried to utter and even desperate impiety is not due to any innate goodness of theirs but  because the eye of God watches over their safety and his hand is outstretched to them!

 For those who imagine that some sort of seed of election was sown in them from birth itself, and that by its power they have always been inclined to piety and the fear of God,  are not supported by Scriptural authority and are refuted by experience  itself. ...



13. THE PREACHING OF THE WORD ITSELF CAN CONDUCE TO HARDNESS OF HEART

... We cannot gainsay the fact that, to those whom he pleases not to illumine, God transmits his doctrine wrapped in enigmas in order that they may not profit by it except to be cast into greater stupidity. For Christ testifies that the reason why he expounds to the apostles alone the parables in which he had spoken to the multitude is that to them “it has been given to know the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven but not to the common folk” [Matthew 13:11 p.]. What does the Lord mean, you will ask, by teaching those by whom he takes care not to be understood? Consider whose fault it is, and stop questioning. For however much obscurity there may be in the Word, there is still always enough light to convict the conscience of the wicked.

14. THE CAUSE OF HARDNESS OF HEART

It now remains for us to see why the Lord does what he manifestly does. If it be answered that it so happens because men have deserved it on account of their impiety, wickedness, and ungratefullness,  this will indeed be well and truly spoken. But because the reason for this variation is not yet clear—why, when some are bent to obedience, these folk remain obdurate—to investigate the matter we must pass on to that point which Paul noted from Moses[Exodus 9:16], that is, “surely that the Lord from the beginning raised them up to show... his name... in all the earth” [Romans 9:17].The fact that the reprobate do not obey God’s Word when it is made known to them will be justly charged against the malice and depravity of their hearts, provided it be added at the same time that they have been given over to this depravity because they have been raised up by the just but inscrutable judgment of God to show forth his glory in their condemnation....

When the impious hear these things, they complain that God with unbridled power abuses his miserable creatures for his cruel amusement.  But we, who know all men to be on so many counts liable before God’s judgment seat that challenged on a thousand points they cannot give satisfaction even on one, confess that the wicked suffer nothing out of accord with God’s most righteous judgment. Despite the fact that we do not clearly grasp the reason for this, let us not be unwilling to admit some ignorance where God’s wisdom rises to its height.

 16. 1 TIMOTHY 2:3-4, AND SIMILAR PASSAGES

Secondly, they quote a passage from Paul in which he states that God “wills all men to be saved” [1 Timothy 2:3-4].  Even though this is distinct from the above reason, it has something in common with it. I reply: first, it is clear from the context how He wills it. For Paul couples the two points: that He wills them to be saved, and to come to a recognition of the truth. If they mean that this has been fixed by God’s eternal plan so that they may receive the doctrine of salvation, what does that saying of Moses’ mean: “What nation is so glorious that God should draw nigh unto it as he does unto you?” [Deuteronomy 4:7 p., cf. Comm.]. How did it happen that God deprived many peoples of the light of his gospel while others enjoyed it? How did it happen that the pure recognition of the doctrine of godliness never came to some, while others barely tasted some obscure rudiments of it? From this it will be easy to determine the drift of Paul’s reasoning. He had enjoined upon Timothy to make solemn prayers in the church for kings and rulers [1 Timothy 2:1,2]. But since it seemed somewhat absurd to pour out prayers to God for an almost hopeless class of men (not only strangers all to the body of Christ, but intent upon crushing his Kingdom with all their strength), he adds, “This is acceptable to God, who wills all men to be saved” [1 Timothy 2:3-4 p.]. By this, Paul surely means only that God has not closed the way unto salvation to any order of men; rather, he has so poured out his mercy that he would have none without it.

The other statements do not declare what God has determined in his secret judgment regarding all men, but they proclaim that there is ready pardon for all sinners, provided they turn back to seek it. For if they should tenaciously insist on the statement that he wills to have mercy on all [cf. Romans 11:32], I give by way of exception what is written elsewhere: “Our God is in heaven, where he does whatever he pleases” [Psalm 115:3]. So, then, this word is to be explained as to agree with the other: “I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy, and I will pity those whom I pity” [Exodus 33:19 p.]. He who chooses those upon whom he is bound to show mercy does not bestow it upon all. But since it clearly appears that he is there concerned with classes of men, not men as individuals, away with further discussion! Yet we ought at the same time to note that Paul is not stating what God does at all times, in all places, and to all men, but leaves him free to make even kings and magistrates sharers in the heavenly doctrine, though because of their blindness they should rage against it.

They seem to raise a stronger objection on the basis of a passage in Peter: “God does not will that any should perish but that he should receive all to repentance” [2 Peter 3:9 p.]. But the solution of the difficulty occurs immediately in the second phrase, because the will to receive to repentance can only be understood in the sense generally taught. Conversion is obviously in God’s hand: when he promises that he will give a certain few a heart of flesh but leave the rest with a heart of stone [Ezekiel 36:26], let him be asked whether he wills to convert all. It is indeed true that unless he were ready to receive those who call upon his mercy, this statement would be out of place: “Be converted to me... and I shall be converted to you” [Zechariah 1:8].  But I assert that no mortal man approaches God unless God anticipates him. And, if repentance had been man’s to choose, Paul would not have said: “In case God may grant them repentance” [2 Timothy 2:25]. Indeed, unless the same God who urges all to repentance with his own voice also drew the elect to himself by the secret moving of his spirit, Jeremiah would not have said: “Convert me, O Lord, and I will be converted... For when thou didst convert me, I repented” [Jeremiah 31:18-19, cf. Vg.].

17. ANSWERS TO FURTHER OBJECTIONS

But, you will say, if this is so, there will be little faith in the gospel promises, which, in testifying to the will of God, assert that he wills what is contrary to his inviolable decree. Not at all. For however universal the promises of salvation may be, they are still in no respect inconsistent with the predestination of the reprobate, provided we pay attention to their effect. When we receive the promises in faith, we know that then and only then do they become effective in us. On the contrary, when faith is snuffed out, the promise is abolished at the same time. If this is their nature, let us see whether they disagree with one another. God is said to have ordained from eternity those whom he wills to embrace in love, and those upon whom he wills to vent his wrath. Yet he announces salvation to all men indiscriminately.  I maintain that these statements agree perfectly with each other. For by so promising he merely means that his mercy is extended to all, provided they seek after it and implore it. But only those whom he has illumined do this. And he illumines those whom he has predestined to salvation. These latter possess the sure and unbroken truth of the promises, so that one cannot speak of any disagreement between God’s eternal election and the testimony of his grace that he offers to believers.

...

They play with the frivolous argument that, since God is Father of all, it is unjust for him to forsake any but those who by their own guilt previously have deserved this punishment. As if God’s generosity did not extend even to pigs and dogs! But if it is a question of mankind, let them answer why God bound himself to one people, to be their Father; also why he picked a small number out of these, like a flower. But their own passion to speak evil prevents these revilers from considering that “God makes his sun rise on the good and the evil” [Matthew 5:45 p.], so that the inheritance is entrusted to those few to whom he will sometime say, “Come, blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom” [Matthew 25:34], etc. They also object that God hates nothing he has made.  This I concede to them; yet what I teach stands firm: that the reprobate are hateful to God, and with very good reason. For, deprived of his Spirit, they can bring forth nothing but reason for cursing. They add that “there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile” [Romans 10:12], and that consequently God’s grace is extended to all indiscriminately. Provided, to be sure, that they admit, as Paul states, that “God calls men both from the  Jews and from the Gentiles according to his good pleasure” [Romans 9:24 p.], so that he is bound to no one. In this way we also dispose of their objection made in another place, that “God has shut up all things under sin, that he may have mercy upon all” [Romans 11:32, conflated with Galatians 3:22]; that is to say, because he wills that the salvation of all who are saved be ascribed to his own mercy, although this benefit is not common to all. Now when many notions are adduced on both sides, let this be our conclusion: to tremble with Paul at so deep a mystery; but, if froward tongues clamor, not to be ashamed of this exclamation of his: “Who are you, O man, to argue with God?” [Romans 9:20 p.]. For as Augustine truly contends, they who measure divine justice by the standard of human justice are acting perversely.

links to further online research:

as always the place to start is monergism:
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/election.html
http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/predestination.html

an excellent essay by John Murray at: http://www.the-highway.com/predestination_Murray.html
 on the confessions' teaching on predestination where he writes:
Study even of Calvin’s later works, including his definitive edition of the Institutes (1559), readily discloses that his polemics and formulations were not oriented to the exigencies of debates that were subsequent to the time of his writing. It is appropriate and necessary, therefore, that in dealing with Calvin, Dordt, and Westminster we should be alert to the differing situations existing in the respective dates and to the ways in which thought and language were affected by diverse contexts. In applying this principle, however, caution must be observed. This is particularly necessary in the case of Calvin. Too frequently he is enlisted in support of positions that diverge from those of his successors in the Reformed tradition. It is true that Calvin’s method differs considerably from that of the classic Reformed systematizers of the 17th century. But this difference of method does not of itself afford any warrant for a construction of Calvin that places him in sharp contrast with the more analytically developed formulations of Reformed theology in the century that followed.

Belgic Confession

Article 16 - Eternal Election

We believe that all the posterity of Adam, being thus fallen into perdition and ruin by the sin of our first parents, God then did manifest Himself such as He is; that is to say, merciful and just: merciful, since He delivers and preserves from this perdition all whom He, in His eternal and unchangeable counsel, of mere goodness hath elected in Christ Jesus our Lord, without any respect to their works; just, in leaving others in the fall and perdition wherein they have involved themselves.

Rom. 9:18,22-23; 3:12
Rom. 9:15-16; 11:32; Eph. 2:8-10; Ps. 100:3; 1 John 4:10; Deut. 32:8; 1 Sam. 12:22; Ps. 115:5; Mal. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:9; Rom. 8:29; 9:11,21; 11:5-6; Eph.1:4; Tit. 3:4-5; Acts 2:47; 13:48; 2 Tim. 2:19-20; 1 Pet. 1:2; John 6:27;15:16; 17:9
Rom. 9:17,18; 2 Tim. 2:20

please note that it is not strongly double predestinaterian....