|
|
It is my intention to cut out
sections rather than whole chapters thus making the readings shorter in
this book. The reason is that the writing is more difficult then Book
I, as is the theology, smaller doses may help more people complete and
get something out of these pieces. The whole text is certainly
available to anyone who wants to read it all.
from: http://www.smartlink.net/~douglas/calvin/bk2ch01.html
(A true knowledge of ourselves destroys self-confidence, 1-3)
1. Wrong and right knowledge of self
It was not without reason that the ancient proverb so strongly recommended to man the knowledge of himself. For if it is deemed disgraceful to be ignorant of things pertaining to the business of life, much more disgraceful is self ignorance, in consequence of which we miserably deceive ourselves in matters of the highest moment, and so walk blindfold.
But the more useful the precept is, the more careful we must be not to use it preposterously, as we see certain philosophers have done. For they, when exhorting man to know himself, state the motive to be, that he may not be ignorant of his own excellence and dignity. They wish him to see nothing in himself but what will fill him with vain confidence, and inflate him with pride.
But self-knowledge consists in this, First, When reflecting on what God gave us at our creation, and still continues graciously to give, we perceive how great the excellence of our nature would have been had its integrity remained, and, at the same time, remember that we have nothing of our own, but depend entirely on God, from whom we hold at pleasure whatever he has seen it meet to bestow; secondly When viewing our miserable condition since Adam's fall, all confidence and boasting are overthrown, we blush for shame, and feel truly humble. For as God at first formed us in his own image, that he might elevate our minds to the pursuit of virtue, and the contemplation of eternal life, so to prevent us from heartlessly burying those noble qualities which distinguish us from the lower animals, it is of importance to know that we were endued with reason and intelligence, in order that we might cultivate a holy and honourable life, and regard a blessed immortality as our destined aim.
At the same time, it is impossible to think of our primeval dignity without being immediately reminded of the sad spectacle of our ignominy and corruption, ever since we fell from our original in the person of our first parent. In this way, we feel dissatisfied with ourselves, and become truly humble, while we are inflamed with new desires to seek after God, in whom each may regain those good qualities of which all are found to be utterly destitute.
(Adam's sin entailed loss of man's original endowment and ruin of
the whole human race, 4-7)
4. The history of the Fall shows us what sin is [Gen., ch.3]:
unfaithfulness
As the act which God punished so severely must have been not a trivial fault, but a heinous crime, it will be necessary to attend to the peculiar nature of the sin which produced Adam's fall, and provoked God to inflict such fearful vengeance on the whole human race. The common idea of sensual intemperance is childish. The sum and substance of all virtues could not consist in abstinence from a single fruit amid a general abundance of every delicacy that could be desired, the earth, with happy fertility, yielding not only abundance, but also endless variety.
We must, therefore, look deeper than sensual intemperance. The prohibition to touch the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was a trial of obedience, that Adam, by observing it, might prove his willing submission to the command of God. For the very term shows the end of the precept to have been to keep him contented with his lot, and not allow him arrogantly to aspire beyond it. The promise, which gave him hope of eternal life as long as he should eat of the tree of life, and, on the other hand, the fearful denunciation of death the moment he should taste of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, were meant to prove and exercise his faith. Hence it is not difficult to infer in what way Adam provoked the wrath of God. Augustine, indeed, is not far from the mark, when he says, (in Psal. 19,) that pride was the beginning of all evil, because, had not man's ambition carried him higher than he was permitted, he might have continued in his first estate.
A further definition, however, must be derived from the kind of temptation which Moses describes. When, by the subtlety of the devil, the woman faithlessly abandoned the command of God, her fall obviously had its origin in disobedience. This Paul confirms, when he says, that, by the disobedience of one man, all were destroyed. At the same time, it is to be observed, that the first man revolted against the authority of God, not only in allowing himself to be ensnared by the wiles of the devil, but also by despising the truth, and turning aside to lies. Assuredly, when the word of God is despised, all reverence for Him is gone. His majesty cannot be duly honoured among us, nor his worship maintained in its integrity, unless we hang as it were upon his lips. Hence infidelity was at the root of the revolt. From infidelity, again, sprang ambition and pride, together with ingratitude; because Adam, by longing for more than was allotted him, manifested contempt for the great liberality with which God had enriched him. It was surely monstrous impiety that a son of earth should deem it little to have been made in the likeness, unless he were also made the equal of God. If the apostasy by which man withdraws from the authority of his Maker, nay, petulantly shakes off his allegiance to him, is a foul and execrable crime, it is in vain to extenuate the sin of Adam. Nor was it simple apostasy. It was accompanied with foul insult to God, the guilty pair assenting to Satan's calumnies when he charged God with malice, envy, and falsehood. In fine, infidelity opened the door to ambition, and ambition was the parent of rebellion, man casting off the fear of God, and giving free vent to his lust. Hence, Bernard truly says, that, in the present day, a door of salvation is opened to us when we receive the gospel with our ears, just as by the same entrance, when thrown open to Satan, death was admitted. Never would Adam have dared to show any repugnance to the command of God if he had not been incredulous as to his word. The strongest curb to keep all his affections under due restraint, would have been the belief that nothing was better than to cultivate righteousness by obeying the commands of God, and that the highest possible felicity was to be loved by him. Man, therefore, when carried away by the blasphemies of Satan, did his very utmost to annihilate the whole glory of God.
5. The first sin as original sin
As Adam's spiritual life would have consisted in remaining united and bound to his Maker, so estrangement from him was the death of his soul. Nor is it strange that he who perverted the whole order of nature in heaven and earth deteriorated his race by his revolt. "The whole creation groaneth," saith St Paul, "being made subject to vanity, not willingly," (Rom. 8: 20,22.) If the reason is asked, there cannot be a doubt that creation bears part of the punishment deserved by man, for whose use all other creatures were made. Therefore, since through man's fault a curse has extended above and below, over all the regions of the world, there is nothing unreasonable in its extending to all his offspring. After the heavenly image in man was effaced, he not only was himself punished by a withdrawal of the ornaments in which he had been arrayed, viz., wisdom, virtue, justice, truth, and holiness, and by the substitution in their place of those dire pests, blindness, impotence, vanity, impurity, and unrighteousness, but he involved his posterity also, and plunged them in the same wretchedness.
This is the hereditary corruption to which early Christian writers gave the name of Original Sin, meaning by the term the depravation of a nature formerly good and pure. The subject gave rise to much discussion, there being nothing more remote from common apprehension, than that the fault of one should render all guilty, and so become a common sin. This seems to be the reason why the oldest doctors of the church only glance obscurely at the point, or, at least, do not explain it so clearly as it required. This timidity, however, could not prevent the rise of a Pelagius with his profane fiction - that Adam sinned only to his own hurt, but did no hurt to his posterity. Satan, by thus craftily hiding the disease, tried to render it incurable. But when it was clearly proved from Scripture that the sin of the first man passed to all his posterity, recourse was had to the cavil, that it passed by imitation, and not by propagation. The orthodoxy, therefore, and more especially Augustine, laboured to show, that we are not corrupted by acquired wickedness, but bring an innate corruption from the very womb. It was the greatest impudence to deny this. But no man will wonder at the presumption of the Pelagians and Celestians, who has learned from the writings of that holy man how extreme the effrontery of these heretics was. Surely there is no ambiguity in David's confession, "I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me," (Ps. 51: 5.) His object in the passage is not to throw blame on his parents; but the better to commend the goodness of God towards him, he properly reiterates the confession of impurity from his very birth. As it is clear, that there was no peculiarity in David's case, it follows that it is only an instance of the common lot of the whole human race.
All of us, therefore, descending from an impure seed, come into the world tainted with the contagion of sin. Nay, before we behold the light of the sun we are in God's sight defiled and polluted. "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one," says the Book of Job, (Job 14: 4.)
6. Original sin does not rest upon imitation
We thus see that the impurity of parents is transmitted to their children, so that all, without exception, are originally depraved. The commencement of this depravity will not be found until we ascend to the first parent of all as the fountain head. We must, therefore, hold it for certain, that, in regard to human nature, Adam was not merely a progenitor, but, as it were, a root, and that, accordingly, by his corruption, the whole human race was deservedly vitiated. This is plain from the contrast which the Apostle draws between Adam and Christ, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned; even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord," (Rom. 5: 19-21.) To what quibble will the Pelagians here recur? That the sin of Adam was propagated by imitation! Is the righteousness of Christ then available to us only in so far as it is an example held forth for our imitation? Can any man tolerate such blasphemy? But if, out of all controversy, the righteousness of Christ, and thereby life, is ours by communication, it follows that both of these were lost in Adam that they might be recovered in Christ, whereas sin and death were brought in by Adam, that they might be abolished in Christ. There is no obscurity in the words, "As by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." Accordingly, the relation subsisting between the two is this, As Adam, by his ruin, involved and ruined us, so Christ, by his grace, restored us to salvation.
In this clear light of truth I cannot see any need of a longer or more laborious proof. Thus, too, in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, when Paul would confirm believers in the confident hope of the resurrection, he shows that the life is recovered in Christ which was lost in Adam, (1 Cor. 15: 22.) Having already declared that all died in Adam, he now also openly testifies, that all are imbued with the taint of sin. Condemnation, indeed, could not reach those who are altogether free from blame. But his meaning cannot be made clearer than from the other member of the sentence, in which he shows that the hope of life is restored in Christ. Every one knows that the only mode in which this is done is, when by a wondrous communication Christ transfuses into us the power of his own righteousness, as it is elsewhere said, "The Spirit is life because of righteousness," (1 Cor. 15: 22.) Therefore, the only explanation which can be given of the expression, "in Adam all died," is, that he by sinning not only brought disaster and ruin upon himself, but also plunged our nature into like destruction; and that not only in one fault, in a matter not pertaining to us, but by the corruption into which he himself fell, he infected his whole seed.
Paul never could have said that
all are "by nature the children of wrath," (Eph. 2: 3,) if they had
not been cursed from the womb. And it is obvious that the nature
there referred to is not nature such as God created, but as vitiated
in Adam; for it would have been most incongruous to make God the
author of death. Adam, therefore, when he corrupted himself,
transmitted the contagion to all his posterity. For a heavenly
Judge, even our Saviour himself, declares that all are by birth
vicious and depraved, when he says that "that which is born of the
flesh is fleshy" (John 3: 6,) and that therefore the gate of life is
closed against all until they have been regenerated.
the doctrine of federal headship
of Adam can be found at: http://www.modernreformation.org/mr00/julaug/mr0004theologyillustrated.html
where he writes:
Furthermore, in
the
covenant of works, Adam was a "publik person." The more modern term is
that Adam was the "federal head" of the human race.8
As covenantal or federal head, Adam acted on behalf of his whole race
in the covenant of works. This is not entirely without analogies today.
For example, when the president of the United States signs a treaty, it
binds all the citizens he represents to uphold that treaty. Should the
president break the treaty through his official actions, the whole
country may be accountable. The covenant of grace has as its head, the
"second man," and the "Last Adam" (1 Cor. 15:47, 45), the Lord Jesus
Christ.
7. The transmission of sin from one generation to another
To the understanding of this subject, there is no necessity for an anxious discussion, (which in no small degree perplexed the ancient doctors,) as to whether the soul of the child comes by transmission from the soul of the parent. It should be enough for us to know that Adam was made the depository of the endowments which God was pleased to bestow on human nature, and that, therefore, when he lost what he had received, he lost not only for himself but for us all. Why feel any anxiety about the transmission of the soul, when we know that the qualities which Adam lost he received for us not less than for himself, that they were not gifts to a single man, but attributes of the whole human race? There is nothing absurd, therefore, in the view, that when he was divested, his nature was left naked and destitute that he having been defiled by sin, the pollution extends to all his seed. Thus, from a corrupt root corrupt branches proceeding, transmit their corruption to the saplings which spring from them. The children being vitiated in their parent, conveyed the taint to the grandchildren; in other words, corruption commencing in Adam, is, by perpetual descent, conveyed from those preceding to those coming after them. The cause of the contagion is neither in the substance of the flesh nor the soul, but God was pleased to ordain that those gifts which he had bestowed on the first man, that man should lose as well for his descendants as for himself.
The Pelagian cavil, as to the improbability of children
deriving corruption from pious parents, whereas, they ought rather
to be sanctified by their purity, is easily refuted. Children come
not by spiritual regeneration but carnal descent. Accordingly, as
Augustine says, "Both the condemned unbeliever and the acquitted
believer beget offspring not acquitted but condemned, because the
nature which begets is corrupt." Moreover, though godly parents do
in some measure contribute to the holiness of their offspring, this
is by the blessing of God; a blessing, however, which does not
prevent the primary and universal curse of the whole race from
previously taking effect. Guilt is from nature, whereas
sanctification is from supernatural grace.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
who where the Pelagians? and why is understanding their doctrine
important?
Pelagius was a monk who lived in Britain
in the fifth century. He was a contemporary of the greatest theologian
of the first millennium of Church history if not all time, Aurelius
Augustine, Bishop of Hippo in North Africa. We have heard of St.
Augustine, of his great works in theology, of his City of God, of his Confessions, and so on, which remain Christian
Classics.
Augustine, in addition to being a titanic theologian and a prodigious intellect, was also a man of deep spirituality and prayer. In one of his famous prayers, Augustine made a seemingly harmless and innocuous statement in the prayer to God in which he says: "O God, command what you wouldst, and grant what thou dost command." Now, would that give you apoplexy -- to hear a prayer like that? Well it certainly set Pelagius, this British monk, into orbit. When he heard that, he protested vociferously, even appealing to Rome to have this ghastly prayer censured from the pen of Augustine. Here's why. He said "Are you saying, Augustine, that God has the inherent right to command anything that he so desires from his creatures? Nobody is going to dispute that. God inherently, as the creator of heaven and earth, has the right to impose obligations on his creatures and say, 'Thou shalt do this, and thou shalt not do that.' 'Command whatever thou would' -- it's a perfectly legitimate prayer."
It's the second part of the prayer that Pelagius abhorred -- when Augustine said, "and grant what thou dost command." He said, "What are you talking about? If God is just, if God is righteous and God is holy, and God commands of the creature to do something, certainly that creature would have the power within himself, the moral ability within himself, to perform it or God would never require it in the first place." Now that makes sense, doesn't it? What Pelagius was saying is that moral responsibility always and everywhere implies moral capability or, simply, moral ability. So why would we have to pray, "God grant me, give me the gift of being able to do what you command me to do"? Pelagius saw in this statement a shadow being cast over the integrity of God himself, who would hold people responsible for doing something they cannot do.
So, in the ensuing debate, Augustine made it clear that in creation, God commanded nothing from Adam and Eve that they were incapable of performing. But once transgression entered and mankind became fallen, God's law was not repealed nor did God adjust his holy requirements downward to accommodate the weakened, fallen condition of his creation. God did punish his creation by visiting upon them the judgment of original sin, so that everyone after Adam and Eve who was born into this world was born already dead in sin. Original sin is not the first sin. It's a result of the first sin; it refers to our inherent corruption, by which we are born in sin and by sin did our mothers conceive us. We are not born in a neutral state of innocence, but we are born in a sinful, fallen condition. Virtually every church in the historic World Council of Churches at some point in their history and in their creedal development articulates some doctrine of original sin. So clear is it that to the biblical revelation that it would take a repudiation of the biblical view of mankind to deny original sin altogether.
This
is precisely what was at issue in the battle between Augustine and
Pelagius in the fifth century. Pelagius said there is no such thing as
original sin. Adam's sin affected Adam and only Adam. There is no
transmission or transfer of guilt or fallenness or corruption to the
progeny of Adam and Eve. Everyone is born in the same state of
innocence in which Adam was created. And, he said, for a person to live
a life of obedience to God, a life of moral perfection, is possible
without any help from Jesus or without any help from the grace of God.
Pelagius said that grace -- and here's the key distinction --
facilitates righteousness. What does "facilitate" mean? It helps, it
makes more facile, it makes it easier, but you don't have to have it.
You can be perfect without it. Pelagius further stated that it is not
only theoretically possible for some folks to live a perfect life
without any assistance from divine grace, but there are in fact some
people who do it. Augustine said, "No, no, no, no... we are infected by
sin by nature, to the very depths and core of our being -- so much so
that no human being has the moral power to incline themselves to
cooperate with the grace of God. The human will, as a result of
original sin, still has the power to choose, but it is in bondage to
its evil desires and inclinations. The condition of fallen humanity is
one that Augustine would describe as the inability not to sin. In
simple English, what Augustine was saying that in the Fall, man loses
his moral ability to do the things of God and he is held captive by his
own evil inclinations.
from:
http://www.modernreformation.org/mr01/mayjun/mr0103pelagian.html
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
from: http://www.smartlink.net/~douglas/calvin/bk2ch02.html
(Perils of this topic: point of view established, I)
1.
Having seen that the dominion of sin, ever since the first
man was brought under it, not only extends to the whole race, but
has complete possession of every soul, it now remains to consider
more closely, whether from the period of being thus enslaved, we
have been deprived of all liberty; and if any portion still remains,
how far its power extends. In order to facilitate the answer to this
questions it may be proper in passing to point out the course which
our inquiry ought to take. The best
method of avoiding error is to
consider the dangers which beset us on either side. (1) Man being
devoid
of all uprightness, immediately takes occasion from the fact to
indulge in sloth, and having no ability in himself for the study of
righteousness, treats the whole subject as if he had no concern in
it. (2) On the other hand, man cannot arrogate any thing, however
minute, to himself, without robbing God of his honour, and through
rash confidence subjecting himself to a fall.
(Critical discussion of opinions on free will given by
philosophers and theologians, 2-9)
2. The philosophers trust in the power of the understanding
Having lately observed, that the faculties of the soul are
seated in the mind and the heart, let us now consider how far the
power of each extends. Philosophers generally maintain, that reason
dwells in the mind like a lamp, throwing light on all its counsels,
and like a queen, governing the will - that it is so pervaded with
divine light as to be able to consult for the best, and so endued
with vigour as to be able perfectly to command; that, on the
contrary, sense is dull and short-sighted, always creeping on the
ground, grovelling among inferior objects, and never rising to true
vision; that the appetite, when it obeys reason, and does not allow
itself to be subjugated by sense, is borne to the study of virtue,
holds a straight course, and becomes transformed into will; but that
when enslaved by sense, it is corrupted and depraved so as to
degenerate into lust. In a word,
since, according to their opinion,
the faculties which I have mentioned above, namely, intellect,
sense, and appetite, or will, (the latter being the term in ordinary
use,) are seated in the soul, they maintain that the intellect is
endued with reason, the best guide to a virtuous and happy life,
provided it duly avails itself of its excellence, and exerts the
power with which it is naturally endued; that, at the same time, the
inferior movement, which is termed sense, and by which the mind is
led away to error and delusion, is of such a nature, that it can be
tamed and gradually subdued by the power of reason. To the will,
moreover, they give an intermediate place between reason and sense,
regarding it as possessed of full power and freedom, whether to obey
the former, or yield itself up to be hurried away by the latter.
4. The church fathers generally show less clarity but a tendency to accept freedom of the will. What is free will?
Among ecclesiastical writers, although there is none who did
not acknowledge that sound reason in man was seriously injured by
sin, and the will greatly entangled by vicious desires, yet many of
them made too near an approach to the philosophers. Some of the most
ancient writers appear to me to have exalted human strengths from a
fear that a distinct acknowledgement of its impotence might expose
them to the jeers of the philosophers with whom they were disputing,
and also furnish the flesh, already too much disinclined to good,
with a new pretext for sloth. Therefore, to avoid teaching anything
which the majority of mankind might deem absurd, they made it their
study, in some measure, to reconcile the doctrine of Scripture with
the dogmas of philosophy, at the same time making it their special
care not to furnish any occasion to sloth. This is obvious from
their words. Chrysostom says, "God having placed good and evil in
our power, has given us full freedom of choice; he does not keep
back the unwilling, but embraces the willing," (Homil. de Prodit.
Judae.) Again, "He who is wicked is often, when he so chooses,
changed into good, and he who is good falls through sluggishness,
and becomes wicked. For the Lord has made our nature free. He does
not lay us under necessity, but furnishing apposite remedies, allows
the whole to depend on the views of the patient," (Homily. 18, in
Genesis.) Again, "As we can do nothing rightly until aided by the
grace of God, so, until we bring forward what is our own, we cannot
obtain favour from above," (Homily. 52.) He had previously said, "As
the whole is not done by divine assistance, we ourselves must of
necessity bring somewhat." Accordingly, one of his common
expressions is, "Let us bring what is our own, God will supply the
rest." In unison with this, Jerome says, "It is ours to begin, God's
to finish: it is ours to offer what we can, his to supply what we
cannot," (Dialog. 3 Cont. Pelag.)
(We must abandon all self-approbation, 10-11)
10. The doctrine of free will is always in danger of robbing God of
his honor
Here however, I must again repeat what I premised at the
outset of this chapter, that he who is most deeply abased and
alarmed, by the consciousness of his disgrace, nakedness, want, and
misery, has made the greatest progress in the knowledge of himself.
Man is in no danger of taking too much from himself, provided he
learns that whatever he wants is to be recovered in God. But he
cannot arrogate to himself one particle beyond his due, without
losing himself in vain confidence, and, by transferring divine
honour to himself, becoming guilty of the greatest impiety. And,
assuredly, whenever our minds are seized with a longing to possess a
somewhat of our own, which may reside in us rather than in God, we
may rest assured that the thought is suggested by no other
counsellor than he who enticed our first parents to aspire to be
like gods, knowing good and evil. It is sweet, indeed, to have so
much virtue of our own as to be able to rest in ourselves; but let
the many solemn passages by which our pride is sternly humbled,
deter us from indulging this vain confidence: "Cursed be the man
that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm." (Jer. 17: 5.) "He
delighteth not in the strength of the horse; he taketh not pleasure
in the legs of a man. The Lord taketh pleasure in those that fear
him, in those that hope in his mercy," (Ps. 147: 10, l1.) "He giveth
power to the faint; and to them that have no might he increaseth
strength. Even the youths shall faint and be weary, and the young
men shall utterly fall: But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew
their strength," (Is. 40: 29-31.) The scope of all these passages is
that we must not entertain any opinion whatever of our own strength,
if we would enjoy the favour of God, who "resisteth the proud, but
giveth grace unto the humble," (James 4: 6.) Then let us call to
mind such promises as these, "I will pour water upon him that is
thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground," (Is. 44: 3;) "Ho, every
one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters," (Is. 55: 1.) These
passages declare, that none are admitted to enjoy the blessings of
God save those who are pining under a sense of their own poverty.
Nor ought such passages as the following to be omitted: "The sun
shall no more be thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the
moon give light unto thee: but the Lord shall be unto thee an
everlasting light, and thy God thy glory," (Is. 60: 19.) The Lord
certainly does not deprive his servants of the light of the sun or
moon, but as he would alone appear glorious in them, he dissuades
them from confidence even in those objects which they deem most
excellent.
(Man's natural endowments not wholly extinguished: the
understanding, 12-17)
12. Supernatural gifts destroyed; natural gifts corrupted; but
enough of reason remains to distinguish man from brute beasts
...
Therefore, since reason, by which man discerns between good and evil, and by which he understands and judges, is a natural gift, it could not be entirely destroyed; but being partly weakened and partly corrupted, a shapeless ruin is all that remains. In this sense it is said, (John 1: 5,) that "the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not;" these words clearly expressing both points, viz., that in the perverted and degenerate nature of man there are still some sparks which show that he is a rational animal, and differs from the brutes, inasmuch as he is endued with intelligence, and yet, that this light is so smothered by clouds of darkness that it cannot shine forth to any good effect.
In like manner, the will, because inseparable from the nature of man, did not perish, but was so enslaved by depraved lusts as to be incapable of one righteous desire. The definition now given is complete, but there are several points which require to be explained.
Therefore, proceeding agreeably to that primary distinction, (Book 1 c. 15 sec. 7 and 8,) by which we divided the soul into intellect and will, we will now inquire into the power of the intellect.
To charge the intellect with perpetual blindness, so as to
leave it no intelligence of any description whatever, is repugnant
not only to the Word of God, but to common experience. We see that
there has been implanted in the human mind a certain desire of
investigating truth, to which it never would aspire unless some
relish for truth antecedently existed. There is, therefore, now, in
the human mind, discernment to this extent, that it is naturally
influenced by the love of truth, the neglect of which in the lower
animals is a proof of their gross and irrational nature. Still it is
true that this love of truth fails before it reaches the goal,
forthwith falling away into vanity. As the human mind is unable,
from dullness, to pursue the right path of investigation, and, after
various wanderings, stumbling every now and then like one groping in
darkness, at length gets completely bewildered, so its whole
procedure proves how unfit it is to search the truth and find it.
13. The power of the understanding with respect to earthly things and the form of the human community
Still, however, man's efforts are not always so utterly fruitless as not to lead to some result, especially when his attention is directed to inferior objects. Nay, even with regard to superior objects, though he is more careless in investigating them, he makes some little progress. Here, however, his ability is more limited, and he is never made more sensible of his weakness than when he attempts to soar above the sphere of the present life. It may therefore be proper, in order to make it more manifest how far our ability extends in regard to these two classes of objects, to draw a distinction between them. The distinction is, that we have one kind of intelligence of earthly things, and another of heavenly things. By earthly things, I mean those which relate not to God and his kingdom, to true righteousness and future blessedness, but have some connection with the present life, and are in a manner confined within its boundaries. By heavenly things, I mean the pure knowledge of God, the method of true righteousness, and the mysteries of the heavenly kingdom. To the former belong matters of policy and economy, all mechanical arts and liberal studies. To the latter (as to which, see the eighteenth and following sections) belong the knowledge of God and of his will, and the means of framing the life in accordance with them.
As to the former, the view to be taken is this: Since man is by nature a social animal, he is disposed, from natural instinct, to cherish and preserve society; and accordingly we see that the minds of all men have impressions of civil order and honesty. Hence it is that every individual understands how human societies must he regulated by laws, and also is able to comprehend the principles of those laws. Hence the universal agreement in regard to such subjects, both among nations and individuals, the seeds of them being implanted in the breasts of all without a teacher or lawgiver.
The truth of this fact is not affected by the
wars and dissensions which immediately arise, while some, such as
thieves and robbers, would invert the rules of justice, loosen the
bonds of law, and give free scope to their lust; and while others (a
vice of most frequent occurrence) deem that to be unjust which is
elsewhere regarded as just, and, on the contrary, hold that to be
praiseworthy which is elsewhere forbidden. For such persons do not
hate the laws from not knowing that they are good and sacred, but,
inflamed with headlong passion, quarrel with what is clearly
reasonable, and licentiously hate what their mind and understanding
approve. Quarrels of this latter kind do not destroy the primary
idea of justice. For while men dispute with each other as to
particular enactments, their ideas of equity agree in substance.
This, no doubt, proves the weakness of the human mind, which, even
when it seems on the right path, halts and hesitates. Still,
however, it is true, that some principle of civil order is impressed
on all. And this is ample proof, that, in regard to the constitution
of the present life, no man is devoid of the light of reason.
15. Science as God's gift
Therefore,
in reading profane authors, the admirable light
of truth displayed in them should remind us, that the human mind,
however much fallen and perverted from its original integrity, is
still adorned and invested with admirable gifts from its Creator. If
we reflect that the Spirit of God is the only fountain of truth, we
will be careful, as we would avoid offering insult to him, not to
reject or condemn truth wherever it appears. In despising the gifts,
we insult the Giver. How, then, can we deny that truth must
have
beamed on those ancient lawgivers who arranged civil order and
discipline with so much equity? Shall we say that the philosophers,
in their exquisite researches and skilful description of nature,
were blind? Shall we deny the possession of intellect to those who
drew up rules for discourse, and taught us to speak in accordance
with reason? Shall we say that those who, by the cultivation of the
medical art, expended their industry in our behalf were only raving?
What shall we say of the mathematical sciences? Shall we deem them
to be the dreams of madmen? Nay, we cannot read the writings of the
ancients on these subjects without the highest admiration; an
admiration which their excellence will not allow us to withhold. But
shall we deem anything to be noble and praiseworthy, without tracing
it to the hand of God? Far from us be such ingratitude; an
ingratitude not chargeable even on heathen poets, who acknowledged
that philosophy and laws, and all useful arts were the inventions of
the gods. Therefore, since it is manifest that men whom the
Scriptures term carnal, are so acute and clear-sighted in the
investigation of inferior things, their example should teach us how
many gifts the Lord has left in possession of human nature,
notwithstanding of its having been despoiled of the true good.
(But spiritual discernment is wholly lost until we are
regenerated, 18-21)
18. The limits of our understanding
We must now explain what the power
of human reason is, in
regard to the kingdom of God, and spiritual discernments which
consists chiefly of three things - the knowledge of God, the
knowledge of his paternal favour towards us, which constitutes our
salvation, and the method of regulating of our conduct in accordance
with the Divine Law. With regard to the former two, but more
properly the second, men otherwise the most ingenious are blinder
than moles. I deny not, indeed, that in the writings of philosophers
we meet occasionally with shrewd and apposite remarks on the nature
of God, though they invariably savour somewhat of giddy imagination.
As observed above, the Lord has bestowed on them some slight
perception of his Godhead that they might not plead ignorance as an
excuse for their impiety, and has, at times, instigated them to
deliver some truths, the confession of which should be their own
condemnation. Still, though seeing, they saw not. Their discernment
was not such as to direct them to the truth, far less to enable them
to attain it, but resembled that of the bewildered traveller, who
sees the flash of lightning glance far and wide for a moment, and
then vanish into the darkness of the night, before he can advance a
single step. So far is such assistance from enabling him to find the
right path. Besides, how many monstrous falsehoods intermingle with
those minute particles of truth scattered up and down in their
writings as if by chance. In short, not one of them even made the
least approach to that assurance of the divine favour, without which
the mind of man must ever remain a mere chaos of confusion. To the
great truths, What God is in himself, and what he is in relation to
us, human reason makes not the least approach. (See Book 3 c. 2 sec.
14, 15, 16.)
(Sin is distinct from ignorance [vs. Plato], but may be
occasioned by delusion, 22-25)
22. The evidence of God's will that man possesses makes him in
excusable but procures for him no right knowledge
It remains to consider the third branch of the knowledge of spiritual things, viz., the method of properly regulating the conduct. This is correctly termed the knowledge of the works of righteousness, a branch in which the human mind seems to have somewhat more discernment than in the former two, since an Apostle declares, "When the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meantime accusing or else excusing one another" (Rom. 2: 14, 15.) If the Gentiles have the righteousness of the law naturally engraven on their minds, we certainly cannot say that they are altogether blind as to the rule of life.
Nothing, indeed is more common, than for man to be sufficiently instructed in a right course of conduct by natural law, of which the Apostle here speaks. Let us consider, however for what end this knowledge of the law was given to men. For from this it will forthwith appear how far it can conduct them in the way of reason and truth. This is even plain from the words of Paul, if we attend to their arrangement. He had said a little before, that those who had sinned in the law will be judged by the law; and those who have sinned without the law will perish without the law. As it might seem unaccountable that the Gentiles should perish without any previous judgement, he immediately subjoins, that conscience served them instead of the law, and was therefore sufficient for their righteous condemnation. The end of the natural law, therefore, is to render man inexcusable, and may be not improperly defined - the judgement of conscience distinguishing sufficiently between just and unjust, and by convicting men on their own testimony depriving them of all pretext for ignorance. So indulgent is man towards himself, that, while doing evil, he always endeavours as much as he can to suppress the idea of sin. It was this, apparently, which induced Plato (in his Protagoras) to suppose that sins were committed only through ignorance. There might be some ground for this, if hypocrisy were so successful in hiding vice as to keep the conscience clear in the sight of God. But since the sinner, when trying to evade the judgement of good and evil implanted in him, is ever and anon dragged forward, and not permitted to wink so effectually as not to be compelled at times, whether he will or not, to open his eyes, it is false to say that he sins only through ignorance.
24. Human knowledge wholly fails as regards the First Table of
the Law; as regards the Second, fails in a critical situation
...
As to the
precepts of the Second Table, there is considerably more knowledge
of them, inasmuch as they are more closely connected with the
preservation of civil society. Even here, however, there is
something defective. Every man of understanding deems it most absurd
to submit to unjust and tyrannical domination, provided it can by
any means be thrown off, and there is but one opinion among men,
that it is the part of an abject and servile mind to bear it
patiently, the part of an honourable and high-spirited mind to rise
up against it. Indeed, the revenge of injuries is not regarded by
philosophers as a vice. But the Lord condemning this too lofty
spirit, prescribes to his people that patience which mankind deem
infamous. In regard to the general observance of the law,
concupiscence altogether escapes our animadversion. For the natural
man cannot bear to recognise diseases in his lusts. The light of
nature is stifled sooner than take the first step into this profound
abyss. For, when philosophers class immoderate movements of the mind
among vices, they mean those which break forth and manifest
themselves in grosser forms. Depraved desires, in which the mind can
quietly indulge, they regard as nothing, (see infra, chap. 8 sect.
49.)
(Man's inability to will the good, 26-27)
26. The natural instinct that treats the "good" and the "acceptable"
alike has nothing to do with freedom
We must now examine the will, on which the question of freedom principally turns, the power of choice belonging to it rather than the intellect, as we have already seen, (supra, sect. 4.) And at the outset, to guard against its being thought that the doctrine taught by philosophers, and generally received, viz., that all things by natural instinct have a desire of good, is any proof of the rectitude of the human will, - let us observe, that the power of free will is not to be considered in any of those desires which proceed more from instinct than mental deliberation. Even the schoolmen admit, (Thomas, Part 1, Quest. 83, art. 3,) that there is no act of free will, unless when reason looks at opposites. By this they mean, that the things desired must be such as may be made the object of choice, and that to pave the way for choice, deliberation must precede. And, undoubtedly, if you attend to what this natural desire of good in man is, you will find that it is common to him with the brutes. They, too, desire what is good; and when any semblance of good capable of moving the sense appears, they follow after it. Here, however, man does not, in accordance with the excellence of his immortal nature, rationally choose, and studiously pursue, what is truly for his good. He does not admit reason to his counsel, nor exert his intellect; but without reason, without counsel, follows the bent of his nature like the lower animals. The question of freedom, therefore, has nothing to do with the fact of man's being led by natural instinct to desire good. The question is, Does man, after determining by right reason what is good, choose what he thus knows, and pursue what he thus chooses?
Lest any doubt
should be entertained as to this, we must attend to the double
misnomer. For this appetite is not properly a movement of the will,
but natural inclination; and this good is not one of virtue or
righteousness, but of condition, viz., that the individual may feel
comfortable. In fine, how much soever man may desire to obtain what
is good, he does not follow it. There is no man who would not be
pleased with eternal blessedness; and yet, without the impulse of
the Spirit, no man aspires to it. Since, then, the natural desire of
happiness in man no more proves the freedom of the will, than the
tendency in metals and stones to attain the perfection of their
nature, let us consider, in other respects, whether the will is so
utterly vitiated and corrupted in every part as to produce nothing
but evil, or whether it retains some portion uninjured, and
productive of good desires.
from: http://www.smartlink.net/~douglas/calvin/bk2ch03.html
3. God's grace sometimes restrains where it does not cleanse
Here, again we are met with a question very much the same as that which was previously solved. In every age there have been some who, under the guidance of nature, were all their lives devoted to virtue. It is of no consequence, that many blots may be detected in their conduct; by the mere study of virtue, they evinced that there was somewhat of purity in their nature. The value which virtues of this kind have in the sight of God will be considered more fully when we treat of the merit of works. Meanwhile however, it will be proper to consider it in this place also, in so far as necessary for the exposition of the subject in hand. Such examples, then, seem to warn us against supposing that the nature of man is utterly vicious, since, under its guidance, some have not only excelled in illustrious deeds, but conducted themselves most honourably through the whole course of their lives. But we ought to consider, that, notwithstanding of the corruption of our nature, there is some room for divine grace, such grace as, without purifying it, may lay it under internal restraint. For, did the Lord let every mind loose to wanton in its lusts, doubtless there is not a man who would not show that his nature is capable of all the crimes with which Paul charges it, (Rom. 3 compared with Ps. 14: 3, &c.) What?5. Man sins of necessity, but without compulsion
When the will is enchained as the slave of sin, it cannot make a movement towards goodness, far less steadily pursue it. Every such movement is the first step in that conversion to God, which in Scripture is entirely ascribed to divine grace. Thus Jeremiah prays, "Turn thou me, and I shall be turned," (Jer. 31: 18.) Hence, too, in the same chapter, describing the spiritual redemption of believers, the Prophet says, "The Lord has redeemed Jacob, and ransomed him from the hand of him that was stronger than he," (Jer. 31: 11;) intimating how close the fetters are with which the sinner is bound, so long as he is abandoned by the Lord, and acts under the yoke of the devil. Nevertheless, there remains a will which both inclines and hastens on with the strongest affection towards sin; man, when placed under this bondage, being deprived not of will, but of soundness of will. Bernard says not improperly, that all of us have a will; but to will well is proficiency, to will ill is defect. Thus simply to will is the part of man, to will ill the part of corrupt nature, to will well the part of grace. Moreover, when I say that the will, deprived of liberty, is led or dragged by necessity to evil, it is strange that any should deem the expression harsh, seeing there is no absurdity in it, and it is not at variance with pious use. It does, however, offend those who know not how to distinguish between necessity and compulsion. Were any one to ask them, Is not God necessarily good, is not the devil necessarily wicked, what answer would they give? The goodness of God is so connected with his Godhead, that it is not more necessary to be God than to be good; whereas the devil, by his fall, was so estranged from goodness, that he can do nothing but evil. Should any one give utterance to the profane jeer, (see Calvin Adv. Pighium,) that little praise is due to God for a goodness to which he is forced, is it not obvious to every man to reply, It is owing not to violent impulse, but to his boundless goodness, that he cannot do evil? Therefore, if the free will of God in doing good is not impeded, because he necessarily must do good; if the devil, who can do nothing but evil, nevertheless sins voluntarily; can it be said that man sins less voluntarily because he is under a necessity of sinning? This necessity is uniformly proclaimed by Augustine, who, even when pressed by the invidious cavil of Celestius, hesitated not to assert it in the following terms: "Man through liberty became a sinner, but corruption, ensuing as the penalty, has converted liberty into necessity," (August. lib. de Perf. Justin.) Whenever mention is made of the subject, he hesitates not to speak in this way of the necessary bondage of sin, (August. de Nature et Gratia, et alibi.) Let this, then, be regarded as the sum of the distinction. Man, since he was corrupted by the fall, sins not forced or unwilling, but voluntarily, by a most forward bias of the mind; not by violent compulsion, or external force, but by the movement of his own passion; and yet such is the depravity of his nature, that he cannot move and act except in the direction of evil. If this is true, the thing not obscurely expressed is, that he is under a necessity of sinning. Bernard, assenting to Augustine, thus writes: "Among animals, man alone is free, and yet sin intervening, he suffers a kind of violence, but a violence proceeding from his will, not from nature, so that it does not even deprive him of innate liberty," (Bernard, Sermo. super Cantica, 81.) For that which is voluntary is also free. A little after he adds, "Thus, by some means strange and wicked, the will itself, being deteriorated by sin, makes a necessity; but so that the necessity, in as much as it is voluntary, cannot excuse the will, and the will, in as much as it is enticed, cannot exclude the necessity." For this necessity is in a manner voluntary. He afterwards says that "we are under a yoke, but no other yoke than that of voluntary servitude; therefore, in respect of servitude, we are miserable, and in respect of will, inexcusable; because the will, when it was free, made itself the slave of sin." At length he concludes, "Thus the soul, in some strange and evil way, is held under this kind of voluntary, yet sadly free necessity, both bond and free; bond in respect of necessity, free in respect of will: and what is still more strange, and still more miserable, it is guilty because free, and enslaved because guilty, and therefore enslaved because free." My readers hence perceive that the doctrine which I deliver is not new, but the doctrine which of old Augustine delivered with the consent of all the godly, and which was afterwards shut up in the cloisters of monks for almost a thousand years. Lombard, by not knowing how to distinguish between necessity and compulsion, gave occasion to a pernicious error.
from: http://members.aol.com/rsigrace/conseq.html
Machen
(1881-1937) was Professor of New Testament, first at Princeton
Theological Seminary, and afterwards at Westminster Theological
Seminary, Philadelphia. Excerpts from The Christian View of Man
(1937).
The Bible plainly teaches that sinful
actions come from a corrupt
nature of the man who commits them, that individual wrong choices come
from the underlying state of the person who engages in them. A man is
morally responsible for wrong choices springing out of his evil nature,
and he is responsible for the evil nature out of which those wrong
choices spring. Sin is not just a matter of individual actions. Both
the bad actions and also the bad state from which the bad actions come
are sin.
6. Conversion to God constitutes the
remedy or soundness of the human will. This not only begun, but
continued and completed; the beginning, continuance, and completion,
being ascribed entirely to God. This proved by Ezekiel's description of
the stony heart, and from other passages of Scripture.
On the other hand, it may be proper to consider what the
remedy is which divine grace provides for the correction and cure of
natural corruption. Since the Lord, in bringing assistance, supplies
us with what is lacking, the nature of that assistance will
immediately make manifest its converse, viz., our penury. When the
Apostle says to the Philippians, "Being confident of this very
thing, that he which has begun a good work in you, will perform it
until the day of Jesus Christ," (Phil. 1: 6,) there cannot be a
doubt, that by the good work thus begun, he means the very
commencement of conversion in the will. God, therefore, begins the
good work in us by exciting in our hearts a desire, a love, and a
study of righteousness, or (to speak more correctly) by turning,
training, and guiding our hearts unto righteousness; and he
completes this good work by confirming us unto perseverance. But
lest any one should cavil that the good work thus begun by the Lord
consists in aiding the will, which is in itself weak, the Spirit
elsewhere declares what the will, when left to itself, is able to
do. His words are, "A new heart also will I give you, and a new
spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart
out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will
put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and
ye shall keep my judgements, and do them," (Ezek. 36: 26, 27.) How
can it be said that the weakness of the human will is aided so as to
enable it to aspire effectually to the choice of good, when the fact
is, that it must be wholly transformed and renovated? If there is
any softness in a stone; if you can make it tender, and flexible
into any shape, then it may be said, that the human heart may be
shaped for rectitude, provided that which is imperfect in it is
supplemented by divine grace. But if the Spirit, by the above
similitude, meant to show that no good can ever be extracted from
our heart until it is made altogether new, let us not attempt to
share with Him what He claims for himself alone. If it is like
turning a stone into flesh when God turns us to the study of
rectitude, everything proper to our own will is abolished, and that
which succeeds in its place is wholly of God. I say the will is
abolished, but not in so far as it is will, for in conversion
everything essential to our original nature remains: I also say,
that it is created anew, not because the will then begins to exist,
but because it is turned from evil to good. This, I maintains is
wholly the work of God, because, as the Apostle testifies, we are
not "sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves," (2
Cor. 3: 5.) Accordingly, he elsewhere says, not merely that God
assists the weak or corrects the depraved will, but that he worketh
in us to will, (Philip. 2: 13.) From this it is easily inferred, as
I have said, that everything good in the will is entirely the result
of grace. In the same sense, the Apostle elsewhere says, "It is the
same God which worketh all in all," (I Cor. 12: 6.) For he is not
there treating of universal government, but declaring that all the
good qualities which believers possess are due to God. In using the
term "all," he certainly makes God the author of spiritual life from
its beginning to its end. This he had previously taught in different
terms, when he said that there is "one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom
are all things, and we by him," (1 Cor. 8: 6;) thus plainly
extolling the new creation, by which everything of our common nature
is destroyed. There is here a tacit antithesis between Adam and
Christ, which he elsewhere explains more clearly when he says, "We
are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which
God has before ordained that we should walk in them," (Eph. 2: 10.)
His meaning is to show in this way that our salvation is gratuitous
because the beginning of goodness is from the second creation which
is obtained in Christ. If any, even the minutest, ability were in
ourselves, there would also be some merit. But to show our utter
destitution, he argues that we merit nothing, because we are created
in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God has prepared; again
intimating by these words, that all the fruits of good works are
originally and immediately from God. Hence the Psalmist, after
saying that the Lord "has made us," to deprive us of all share in
the work, immediately adds, "not we ourselves." That he is speaking
of regeneration, which is the commencement of the spiritual life, is
obvious from the context, in which the next words are, "we are his
people, and the sheep of his pasture," (Psalm 100: 3.) Not contented
with simply giving God the praise of our salvation, he distinctly
excludes us from all share in it, just as if he had said that not
one particle remains to man as a ground of boasting. The whole is of
God.
10. God's activity does not
produce a possibility that we can exhaust, but an actuality to which we
cannot add
...
Men are indeed to be taught that the favour of God is offered,
without exception, to all who ask it; but since those only begin to
ask whom heaven by grace inspires, even this minute portion of
praise must not be withheld from him. It is the privilege of the
elect to be regenerated by the Spirit of God, and then placed under
his guidance and government. Wherefore Augustine justly derides some
who arrogate to themselves a certain power of willing, as well as
censures others who imagine that that which is a special evidence of
gratuitous election is given to all,
11. Perseverance is exclusively God's work; it is neither a reward nor a complement of our indiviudal act
...
But here two
precautions are necessary. It must not be said that the legitimate
use of the first grace is rewarded by subsequent measures of grace,
as if man rendered the grace of God effectual by his own industry,
nor must it be thought that there is any such remuneration as to
make it cease to be the gratuitous grace of God. I admit, then, that
believers may expect as a blessing from God, that the better the use
they make of previous, the larger the supplies they will receive of
future grace; but I say that even this use is of the Lord, and that
this remuneration is bestowed freely of mere good will.
14. Augustine does not eliminate man's will, but makes it wholly dependent upon grace
In saying elsewhere that the will is not taken away by
grace, but out of bad is changed into good, and after it is good is
assisted, - he only means, that man is not drawn as if by an
extraneous impulses without the movement of the heart, but is
inwardly affected so as to obey from the heart. Declaring that grace
is given specially and gratuitously to the elect, he writes in this
way to Boniface: "We know that Divine grace is not given to all men,
and that to those to whom it is given, it is not given either
according to the merit of works, or according to the merit of the
will, but by free grace: in regard to those to whom it is not given,
we know that the not giving of it is a just judgement from God,"
(August. ad Bonifac. Ep. 106.) In the same epistle, he argues
strongly against the opinion of those who hold that subsequent grace
is given to human merit as a reward for not rejecting the first
grace. For he presses Pelagius to confess that gratuitous grace is
necessary to us for every action, and that merely from the fact of
its being truly grace, it cannot be the recompense of works. But the
matter cannot be more briefly summed up than in the eighth chapter
of his Treatise De Correptione et Gratia, where he shows, First,
that human will does not by liberty obtain grace, but by grace
obtains liberty. Secondly, that by means of the same grace, the
heart being impressed with a feeling of delight, is trained to
persevere, and strengthened with invincible fortitude. Thirdly, that
while grace governs the will, it never falls; but when grace
abandons it, it falls forthwith. Fourthly, that by the free mercy of
God, the will is turned to good, and when turned, perseveres.
Fifthly, that the direction of the will to good, and its constancy
after being so directed, depend entirely on the will of God, and not
on any human merit. Thus the will, (free will, if you choose to
call
it so,) which is left to man, is, as he in another place (Ep. 46)
describes it, a will which can neither be turned to God, nor
continue in God, unless by grace; a will which, whatever its ability
may be, derives all that ability from grace.
from: http://www.smartlink.net/~douglas/calvin/bk2ch04.html
(Man under Satan's control:
but Scripture shows God making use of Satan in hardening the heart of
the reprobate, 1-3)
1.Man stands under the devil's power, and indeed willingly
That man is so enslaved by the yoke of sin, that he cannot
of his own nature aim at good either in wish or actual pursuit, has,
I think, been sufficiently proved. Moreover, a distinction has been
drawn between compulsion and necessity, making it clear that man,
though he sins necessarily, nevertheless sins voluntarily. But
since, from his being brought into bondage to the devil, it would
seem that he is actuated more by the devil's will than his own, it
is necessary, first, to explain what the agency of each is, and then
solve the question. Whether in bad actions anything is to be
attributed to God, Scripture intimating that there is some way in
which he interferes? Augustine (in Psalm 31 and 33) compares the
human will to a horse preparing to start, and God and the devil to
riders. "If God mounts, he, like a temperate and skilful rider,
guides it calmly, urges it when too slow, reins it in when too fast,
curbs its forwardness and over-action, checks its bad temper, and
keeps it on the proper course; but if the devil has seized the
saddle, like an ignorant and rash rider, he hurries it over broken
ground, drives it into ditches, dashes it over precipices, spurs it
into obstinacy or fury." With this simile, since a better does not
occur, we shall for the present be contented. When it is said, then,
that the will of the natural
man is subject to the power of the
devil, and is actuated by him, the meaning is not that the wills
while reluctant and resisting, is forced to submit, (as masters
oblige unwilling slaves to execute their orders,) but that,
fascinated by the impostures of Satan, it necessarily yields to his
guidance, and does him homage. Those whom the Lord
favours not with
the direction of his Spirit, he, by a righteous judgement, consigns
to the agency of Satan. Wherefore, the Apostle says, that "the god
of this world has blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest
the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God,
should shine into them." And, in another passage, he describes the
devil as "the spirit that now worketh in the children of
disobedience," (Eph. 2: 2.) The blinding of the wicked, and all the
iniquities consequent upon it, are called the works of Satan; works
the cause of which is not to be Sought in anything external to the
will of man, in which the root of the evil lies, and in which the
foundation of Satan's kingdom, in other words, sin, is fixed.
7. In each case God's dominion stands above our freedom
It may be objected, that these are special examples which
cannot be regarded as a general rule. They
are sufficient, at all
events, to prove the point for which I contend, viz., that whenever
God is pleased to make way for his providence, he even in external
matters so turns and bends the wills of men, that whatever the
freedom of their choice may be, it is still subject to the disposal
of God. That your mind depends more on the agency of God than
the
freedom of your own choice, daily experience teaches. Your judgement
often fails, and in matters of no great difficulty, your courage
flags; at other times, in matters of the greatest obscurity, the
mode of explicating them at once suggests itself, while in matters
of moment and danger, your mind rises superior to every difficulty.
In this way, I interpret the words of Solomon, "The hearing ear, and
the seeing eye, the Lord hath made even both of them," (Prov. 20:
12.) For they seem to me to refer not to their creation, but to
peculiar grace in the use of them, when he says, "The king's heart
is in the hand of the Lard as the rivers of water; he turneth it
whithersoever he will," (Prov. 21: l,) he comprehends the whole race
under one particular class. If any will is free from subjection, it
must be that of one possessed of regal power, and in a manner
exercising dominion over other wills. But if it is under the hand of
God, ours surely cannot be exempt from it. On this subject there is
an admirable sentiment of Augustine, "Scripture, if it be carefully
examined, will show not only that the good wills of men are made
good by God out of evil, and when so made, are directed to good
acts, even to eternal life, but those which retain the elements of
the world are in the power of God, to turn them whither he pleases,
and when he pleases, either to perform acts of kindness, or by a
hidden, indeed, but, at the same time, most just judgement to
inflict punishment," (August. De Gratia et Lib. Arb. ad Valent. cap.
20.)
from: http://www.smartlink.net/~douglas/calvin/bk2ch05.html
3. The third argument: all distinction between good and evil would be obliterated
But it is added, in terms which seem to be borrowed from
Chrysostom, (Homil. 22, in Genes.,) that if our will possesses not
the power of choosing good or evil, all who are partakers of the
same nature must be alike good or alike bad. A sentiment akin to
this occurs in the work De Vocatione Gentium, (lib. 4 c. 4,) usually
attributed to Ambrose, in which it is argued, that no one would ever
decline from faith, did not the grace of God leave us in a mutable
state. It is strange that such men should have so blundered. How did
it fail to occur to Chrysostom, that it is divine election which
distinguishes among men? We have not the least hesitation to admit
what Paul strenuously maintains, that all, without exception, are
depraved and given over to wickedness; but at the same time we add,
that through the mercy of God all do not continue in wickedness.
Therefore, while we all labour naturally under the same disease,
those only recover health to whom the Lord is pleased to put forth
his healing hand. The others whom, in just judgement, he passes
over, pine and rot away till they are consumed. And this is the only
reason why some persevere to the end, and others, after beginning
their course, fall away. Perseverance is the gift of God, which he
does not lavish promiscuously on all, but imparts to whom he
pleases. If it is asked how the difference arises - why some
steadily persevere, and others prove deficient in steadfastness, we
can give no other reason than that the Lord, by his mighty power,
strengthens and sustains the former, so that they perish not, while
he does not furnish the same assistance to the latter, but leaves
them to be monuments of instability.
5. The meaning of exhortation
What purpose, then, is served by exhortations? It is this:
As the wicked, with obstinate heart, despise them, they will be a
testimony against them when they stand at the judgement-seat of God;
nay, they even now strike and lash their consciences. For, however
they may petulantly deride, they cannot disapprove them. But what,
you will ask, can a miserable mortal do, when softness of heart,
which is necessary to obedience, is denied him? I ask, in reply, Why
have recourse to evasion, since hardness of heart cannot be imputed
to any but the sinner himself? The ungodly, though they would gladly
evade the divine admonitions, are forced, whether they will or not,
to feel their power. But their chief use is to be seen in the case
of believers, in whom the Lord, while he always acts by his Spirit,
also omits not the instrumentality of his word, but employs it, and
not without effect. Let this, then, be a standing truth, that the
whole strength of the godly consists in the grace of God, according
to the words of the prophet, "I will give them one heart, and I will
put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of
their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh, that they may
walk in my statutes," (Ezek. 11: 19, 20.) But it will be asked, why
are they now admonished of their duty, and not rather left to the
guidance of the Spirit? Why are they urged with exhortations when
they cannot hasten any faster than the Spirit impels them? and why
are they chastised, if at any time they go astray, seeing that this
is caused by the necessary infirmity of the flesh? "O, man! who art
thou that replies against God?" If, in order to prepare us for the
grace which enables us to obey exhortation, God sees meet to employ
exhortation, what is there in such an arrangement for you to carp
and scoff at? Had exhortations and
reprimands no other profit with
the godly than to convince them of sin, they could not be deemed
altogether useless. Now, when, by the Spirit of God acting within,
they have the effect of inflaming their desire of good, of arousing
them from lethargy, of destroying the pleasure and honeyed sweetness
of sin, making it hateful and loathsome, who will presume to cavil
at them as superfluous? Should any one wish a clearer reply, let him
take the
following: - God works in his
elect in two ways: inwardly, by his
Spirit; outwardly, by his Word. By his Spirit illuminating their
minds, and training their hearts to the practice of righteousness,
he makes them new creatures, while, by his Word, he stimulates them
to long and seek for this renovation. In both, he exerts the
might
of his hand in proportion to the measure in which he dispenses them.
The Word, when addressed to the reprobate, though not effectual for
their amendment, has another use. It urges their consciences now,
and will render them more inexcusable on the day of judgement.
Thus,
our Saviour, while declaring that none can come to him but those
whom the Father draws, and that the elect come after they have heard
and learned of the Father, (John 6: 44, 45,) does not lay aside the
office of teacher, but carefully invites those who must be taught
inwardly by the Spirit before they can make any profit. The
reprobate, again, are admonished by Paul, that the doctrine is not
in vain; because, while it is in them a savour of death unto death,
it is still a sweet savour unto God, (2 Cor. 2: 16.)
7. the law itself points our way to grace
I admit, indeed, that if the Scripture taught nothing else
on the subject than that the Law is a rule of life by which we ought
to regulate our pursuits, I should at once assent to their opinion;
but since it carefully and clearly explains that the use of the Law
is manifold, the proper course is to learn from that explanation
what the power of the Law is in man. In regard to the present
question, while it explains what our
duty is it teaches that the
power of obeying it is derived from the goodness of God, and it
accordingly urges us to pray that this power may be given us. If
there were merely a command and no promise, it would be necessary to
try whether our strength were sufficient to fulfil the command; but
since promises are annexed, which proclaim not only that aid, but
that our whole power is derived from divine grace, they at the same
time abundantly testify that we are not only unequal to the
observance of the Law, but mere fools in regard to it. Therefore,
let us hear no more of a proportion between our ability and the
divine precepts, as if the Lord had accommodated the standard of
justice which he was to give in the Law to our feeble capacities. We
should rather gather from the promises hove ill provided we are,
having in everything so much need of grace. But say they, Who will
believe that the Lord designed his Law for blocks and stones? There
is no wish to make any one believe this. The ungodly are neither
blocks nor stones, when, taught by the Law that their lusts are
offensive to God, they are proved guilty by their own confession;
nor are the godly blocks or stones, when admonished of their
powerlessness, they take refuge in grace. To this effect are the
pithy sayings of Augustine, "God orders what we cannot do, that we
may know what we ought to ask of him. There is a great utility in
precepts, if all that is given to free will is to do greater honour
to divine grace. Faith acquires what the Law requires; nay, the Law
requires, in order that faith may acquire what is thus required;
nay, more, God demands of us faith itself, and finds not what he
thus demands, until by giving he makes it possible to find it."
Again, he says, "Let God give what he orders, and order what he
wills."
14. Are these works then not "our"
works"?
...
In the former member of
this sentence, he reminds us
that the agency of man is not destroyed
by the motion of the Holy Spirit, because nature furnishes the will
which is guided so as to aspire to good. As to the second
member of
the sentence, in which he says that the very idea of help implies
that we also do something, we must not understand it as if he were
attributing to us some independent power of action; but not to
foster a feeling of sloth, he reconciles the agency of God with our
own agency, by saying, that to wish is from nature, to wish well is
from grace. Accordingly, he had said a little before, "Did not God
assist us, we should not only not be able to conquer, but not able
even to fight."
15. The "works" are ours by God's
gift, ut God's by his prompting
Hence it appears that the grace of God (as this name is
used when regeneration is spoken of) is the rule of the Spirit, in
directing and governing the human will. Govern he cannot, without
correcting, reforming, renovating, (hence we say that the beginning
of regeneration consists in the abolition of what is ours;) in like
manner, he cannot govern without moving, impelling, urging, and
restraining. Accordingly, all the actions which are afterwards done
are truly said to be wholly his. Meanwhile, we deny not the truth of
Augustine's doctrine, that the will
is not destroyed, but rather
repaired, by grace - the two things being perfectly consistent,
viz., that the human will may be said to be renewed when its
vitiosity and perverseness being corrected, it is conformed to the
true standard of righteousness and that, at the same time, the will
may be said to be made new, being so vitiated and corrupted that its
nature must be entirely changed.
from: http://www.opc.org/documents/WCF_frames.html
I. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtlety and temptation of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit.[124] This their sin, God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.[125]
II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God,[126] and so became dead in sin,[127] and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body.[128]
III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed;[129] and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.[130]
IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good,[131] and wholly inclined to all evil,[132] do proceed all actual transgressions.[133]
V. This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated;[134] and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.[135]
VI. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto,[136] doth, in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner,[137] whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God,[138] and curse of the law,[139] and so made subject to death,[140] with all miseries spiritual,[141] temporal,[142] and eternal.[143]
[125] Romans 11:32. For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.
[126] Genesis 3:6-8. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. Ecclesiastes 7:29. Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions. Romans 3:23. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.
[127] Genesis 2:17. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Ephesians 2:1. And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins.
[128] Titus 1:15. Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. Genesis 6:5. And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Jeremiah 17:9. The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? Romans 3:10-18. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes.
[129] Genesis 1:27-28. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Genesis 2:16-17. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Acts 17:26. And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation. Romans 5:12, 15-19. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.... But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, 45, 49. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.... And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.... And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
[130] Psalm 51:5. Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. Genesis 5:3. And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth. Job 14:4. Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. Job 15:14. What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?
[131] Romans 5:6. For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. Romans 8:7. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. Romans 7:18. For I know that in me(that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. Colossians 1:21. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled.
[132] Genesis 6:5. And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Genesis 8:21. And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. Romans 3:10-12. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
[133] James 1:14-15. But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. Ephesians 2:2-3. Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. Matthew 15:19. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.
[134] 1 John 1:8, 10. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.... If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. Romans 7:14, 17-18, 23. For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.... Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me(that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.... But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. James 3:2. For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body. Proverbs 20:9. Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin? Ecclesiastes 7:20. For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.
[135] Romans 7:5, 7-8, 25. For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.... What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.... I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. Galatians 5:17. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
[136] 1 John 3:4. Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
[137] Romans 2:15. Which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another. Romans 3:9, 19. What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin.... Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
[138] Ephesians 2:3. Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
[139] Galatians 3:10. For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
[140] Romans 6:23. For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
[141] Ephesians 4:18. Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart.
[142] Romans 8:20. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope. Lamentations 3:39. Wherefore doth a living man complain, a man for the punishment of his sins?
[143] Matthew 25:41. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. 2 Thessalonians 1:9. Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.
How could Adam as a good, holy man in the image of God, with direct
knowledge of God, first sin?
Specifically, concupiscence is the spontaneous movement of our sensual appetite toward what we imagine as pleasant and away from what we imagine as painful.
Concupiscence of the eyes is an unreasonable desire to see, hear, and know what is harmful to our virtue, inconsistent with our state in life, or detrimental to our higher duties. An example would be the desire to accumulate material possessions irrespective of the means employed, satisfy our ambitions, or nurture our pride.
Concupiscence of the flesh is inordinate when sensual pleasure is
desired as an end to itself apart from its divinely intended purpose:
to facilitate our practice of virtue and satisfy our legitimate desires.
----------------------------
from an anti-'total depravity' essay at:
http://www.wcofc.org/deep/calvin%20the%20source%20of%20his%20doctrin.htm
Let us define original sin [it is] .
. . hereditary pravity and corruption of our nature, diffused through
all the parts of the soul, rendering us obnoxious to the Divine wrath,
and producing in us those works which the Scripture call 'works of the
flesh.' . . . Nevertheless we derive from him [Adam] not only the
punishment, but also the pollution to which the punishment is justly
due. . . .And therefore infants themselves as they bring their
condemnation into the world with them, are rendered obnoxious to
punishment by their own sinfulness, not the sinfulness of another. For
though they have not yet produced the fruits of their iniquity, yet
they have the seed of it within them; even their whole nature is as it
were a seed of sin, and therefore cannot but be odious and abominable
to God.. . . For our nature is not only destitute of all good, but is
so fertile in all evils that it cannot remain inactive.. . . everything
in man, the understanding and will, the soul and body, is polluted and
engrossed by this concupiscence; or, to express it more briefly, that
man is of himself nothing else but concupiscence.
the phrase that the Pastor has used is "we sin because we are
sinners, we are not sinners because we sin", it is a question of the
source, which is inside of us, inescapable and inherent. see: http://www.louisianapresbyterians.org/gospel_calvin.htm
http://www.modernreformation.org/mr93/janfeb/mr9301megashiftchart.html
an
illustration from last week
from: http://www.christianmind.org/chr/illus/conflict.htm
----------------
version 0.2 post class master
dated 21 June 2004
1800 hrs.
