Calvin on temporary, deep in the heart faith
This passage seems a little odd, given the Reformed doctrine that one can know that one will persevere, that one is elect. In this passage from Calvin's Institutes he states that even those who will fall away--i.e. they do not have the gift of perseverance, will have what is preached take deep root in their hearts:
There will be no ambiguity in it [Mt. 22:14], if we attend to what our former remarks ought to have made clear--viz. that there are two species of calling: for there is an universal call, by which God, through the external preaching of the word, invites all men alike, even those for whom he designs the call to be a savor of death, and the ground of a severer condemnation. Besides this there is a special call which, for the most part, God bestows on believers only, when by the internal illumination of the Spirit he causes the word preached to take deep root in their hearts. Sometimes, however, he communicates it also to those whom he enlightens only for a time, and whom afterwards, in just punishment for their ingratitude, he abandons and smites with greater blindness. (Calvin Institutes III 24.8)It seems to me there can be no assurance at all if it is possible for God to enlighten us so that the word takes deep root, but then later he abandons and consignes to even deeper darkness due to ingratitude. Indeed, the passage above even implies this is God's plan. This goes far, far deeper than even the temporary faith I blogged about before because at least temporary faith was described as a sort of false faith. Here Calvin says one can have true faith for a time and yet have this gift taken away. He postulates two species of calling, but there can be no assurance that one is effectually called at any given time--God could remove what he has placed in one's heart just like he can implant it there. That this is just like the faith of the effectually called is brought out by his statement that "for the most part" God only grants deep faith in the heart on believers.
The more I read of Calvin, the more I see that what he purportedly gives for assurance he takes away due to implanting doubt in those who want to know they are elect. The pastoral difficulties are readily apparent: if Christ died only for the elect and if the faith deep in my heart today can be taken away tomorrow due to ingratitude, where is the assurance?
9 comments:
"if it is possible for God to enlighten us so that the word takes deep root, but then later he abandons and consignes to even deeper darkness due to ingratitude. Indeed, the passage above even implies this is God's plan..."
Ed,
Very interesting. Thanks for plumbing Calvin on this topic for the world to see. I especially appreciate it, as certainty of salvation is a huge topic for me. I do believe that God may abandon and consign one baptized as a Christian to deeper darkness. In this sense, he is giving them more of the darkness they have been seeking, in an effort to "give them over" all the more so that they might "come to their senses" and seek, even desperately, the Gospel again. Does God do this only with those baptized into Christ who have already lost their faith? Or might he also do it with persons who retain a weak faith, even as they have have given deeply into temptation? Whatever the case, the difference between the Lutheran and the Calvinist, of course, has to do with God's plan. For the Calvinist, the sinner's punishment is for his eternal reprobation, for by this, God is glorified. For the Lutheran, God desires all men - the whole world, without exception - to be saved, to come to a knowledge of the truth. I think as Lutherans, the important question is not: is this person who I am dealing with definitely a Christian or not, but rather "does this person need to hear Law or Gospel right now"? (which we only learn by experience, by knowing the Word of God, knowing the person we are dealing with, and trusting God's spirit to guide us). For even if God has abandoned and consigned a Christian to the sin they chase, (and thereby to deeper ingratitude, among other sin) that person may, through the workings of God's law (perhaps realized only in the fruit of their harvest), realize how ungrateful, etc. they are and want to confess this sin (perhaps even out of fear), whereby the Lutheran pastor (or layperson) does this:
http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2009/10/20/a-child-of-the-reformation/
Ah, to give them, create in them certainty again! For may the Gospel we preach always be heard as "too sweet" in such circumstances! The friend of sinners indeed!
But as you say:
"if Christ died only for the elect and if the faith deep in my heart today can be taken away tomorrow due to ingratitude, where is the assurance?"
Indeed, again. I know many Calvinists, pastorally speaking, act like Lutherans. But when this is lurking in the background, as well as false notions about what faith is (where, dwelling on our reflective faith [see here: http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2009/07/31/babies-in-church-part-v-the-arrogance-of-the-infant-a/ and http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/babies-in-church-part-vi-the-arrogance-of-the-infant-b/) we end up having "faith in our faith", and not in Christ), it seems to me the Calvinist of sensitive and tender conscience can't not be in a world of hurt.
Again Ed, thanks.
~Nathan
Nathan,
Thanks very much for your thoughts, and those blog posts were interesting, too. Did you go to seminary or something?
Ed,
I went to seminary for a couple years and dropped out - but I've kept up by doing a fair deal of reading (science, philosophy, humanities), having an excellent pastor (educated in Germany), listening to Issues ETC. (and a slew of other educational podcasts [list available upon request :) ], religious and not.
Here's one of my favorite podcasts, which I am listening to now as I do my job (library cataloger). Guess what the this week's topic is?:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00qvqpz
Believe me, you want to listen to this one. I listen to the White Horse Inn too, of course, and I would have loved to have heard Michael Horton as one of the guests...
That said, I know you didn't go to seminary, but it doesn't show. You have obviously been gifted with a very sharp mind - and I love the topics you deal with - which is why I am a loyal reader. : )
Regards,
Nathan
"This passage seems a little odd, given the Reformed doctrine that one can know that one will persevere, that one is elect."
My impression is that this was a development of the 1580s, or at least post-Calvin, with Beza playing a significant role in it. Reformed theologians like Zwingli, Bullinger and even Calvin himself seem to take for granted that, for the most part at least the elect will NOT know that they are among the elect, nor the reprobate among the reprobate, even if possibly some of the elect might know that they are among the elect. In England, the dispute over the Book of Common Prayer, and particularly over the disputed ceremonies such as the sign of the cross in baptism and the ring in marriage, seems to have been in large part before 1610 a dispute between "theological" Calvinists like, for example, Archbishops Whitgift and Bancroft, and "experimental" Calvinists, who believed that the elect could, should and indeed must, be aware of their elect status, and that all the ordinances of the Christian religion, and especially preaching, should be directed toward bring the elect to such a knowledge, and to edifying tham in it.
William,
I have seen you comment on many a theological blog (we've interacted to, as well) and I am wondering if you have your own blog and also, what Church you are affiliated with. Obviously, you are a knowledgable man.
Regards,
Nathan
Dr. Tighe,
It seems to me (and I am by no means a Calvin expert) that for Calvin the elect always have confidence in God's mercy toward them. Those who are not elect may or may not have some operations of the Spirit but are not truly elect and so any confidence they do have is ephemeral at best. Given that, isn't knowing one is elect implicit in that? Indeed, Calvin says as much:
"In one word, he only is a true believer who, firmly persuaded that God is reconciled, and is a kind Father to him, hopes everything from his kindness, who, trusting to the promises of the divine favor, with undoubting confidence anticipates salvation..."(Institutes II 2.16)
In the next section he qualifies this a bit, but at the end of the day the elect know they trust in God's promises or they do not have faith--and are therefore not elect.
It seems to me that later developments simply restate these principles.
Feel free to correct me.
Nathan,
I don't feel I have a lot of theological knowledge. Since I am an engineer I approach these things rather practically which may give the impression of knowledge. I appreciate your remarks none the less!
Nathan,
I do not have a blog of my own. I am a member of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, one of the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome.
Ed,
This is a hard subject. At times Calvin seems to say one thing about the elect and their knowledge of their own election, at others, another; and likewise about the confidence of the elect. Certainly, Calvinist clergy had to deal with all sorts of what we might term psychological difficulties on the part of members of their flock -- but none of them (so far as I am aware), at least among the English, ever denied that members of the elect could experience profound doubt about their elect status, and that such doubts might not be resolved until they were on their death beds, but that nevertheless they were all along members of the elect. My own "take" is that the general statement that the elect would have confidence in God's mercy to them, and hence in their own election, went alongside the practical realization that (a) this was not the case for everybody, and (b) that not all 16th/17th century Calvinists, and perhaps not even very many (what happened later with the growth of "experimental" Calvinism may be a different story) were willing to exclude from the elect those, otherwise practicing and moral Christians, who experienced them.
William,
Thanks for the info. And thank you again for sharing your knowledge with the serious Christian blogophere.
By the way Ed, I thought you might like this:
http://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/and-yet-not-a-calvinist/
~Nathan
Post a Comment