Calvin’s Institutes I:5:7-15

Garrison Keillor used to introduce his tales by saying, "It's been a quiet week in Lake Wobegon."  Once again, it hasn't been a quiet week here, but the Lord has been gracious and sustained us.  Sandy and I have enjoyed our reading of Calvin, but I'm sorry I have to say the obvious, the blog comments have not kept up with the reading. There are some sections ahead which will require more than brief introduction, and some will be pretty straightforward.  Hopefully, we can get caught up instead of getting any further behind.  

Calvin begins the second part of Chapter 5 by explaining that he is talking about a second class of God’s works which he calls, “above the ordinary course of nature.”  This may be a little confusing if we understand that God’s providence, the subject of this section, is over all His works.  So how do we separate the “ordinary course of nature” from God’s arrangements of providence?  I guess the easiest way is to think of a comparison of creation and providence as if Calvin is saying that God reveals Himself in Creation by what He has made and glorifies Himself in Providence by what He does with it for us.   In particular, here it is what He does with it in the realm of managing the affairs of men.   This should not be difficult as it is what is most commonly understood by providence.

I think it is important in reading this part of the chapter to understand that Calvin is talking about what we ought to see and what we would see if we did not resist seeing it on account of our sin.  I say this because people do not reason as Calvin says they should.  He says, for example, in this place, that we should learn from the blessings enjoyed by the righteous, that God is showing them favor, but we should learn from the injustices and miseries experienced by the righteous that God has good in store for them in the afterlife.  Likewise, the sorrows of the wicked demonstrate the revelation of the wrath of God, but their prosperity shows that God has reserved wrath for them in the world to come.  Now, a skeptic will accuse Calvin of special pleading; if this is the case the revelation is not clear after all.  Why not just say there is no providence and that things are just happening.  How should we respond to such an objection?

I think the following things should be kept in mind.  1. Calvin is not reasoning in a vacuum.  These things are further proofs of that which has already been revealed by the creation itself. If these revelations of creation are duly received, then one will not reason contrarily when considering the revelation of providence. 2. Calvin is following Scripture, which declares all the things he says.  True, in a couple of chapters he will say that Scripture teaches nothing about the attributes of God than may be learned from creation, but, again, his purpose in saying this is to show that God has revealed Himself to all men sufficiently for their piety.  They are evidence of the goodness of God; if our minds were not so affected by sin, we would readily see these things as the Scripture declares them.  Go ahead and read Psalm 104 and understand that if it were not for our sinful hearts we would all see these truths clearly.  Note the words he uses to describe the clarity of this revelation: “equally clear,” “clearest manifestations,” “impossible to doubt,” “no unequivocal terms,.” “not to produce any uncertainty.” He is maintaining what Paul says, “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:”

Why don’t they get it?  Calvin’s point here is that we do see them clearly enough, despite the fact that we lazily neglect to, as we say nowadays, “connect the dots,” refuse to acknowledge parts of the revelation (i.e., thinking God is cruel on account of floods while neglecting to thank Him for the many good gifts we receive) or purposely turn to alternative explanations.  He is strenuously opposing the very thought that this revelation of a Paternal providence could be justly attributed to “fortune,” “fate,” “the gods,” or as we say “luck” “breaks,” or “Mother Nature.”  Those who think so fail to “meditate carefully on these works of God, which many, who seem most sharp-sighted in other respects, behold without profit.”  They must receive the revelation, “not resting satisfied with empty speculation which only flutters in the brain;” but, like the seed of the gospel itself, this will only “prove substantial and fruitful wherever it is duly perceived and rooted in the heart.”  Reminding us of human responsibility, even with regard to what we may call “general revelation,” he tells us “diligently to prosecute that investigation of God which so enraptures the soul with admiration as, at the same time, to make an efficacious impression on it.”

 Calvin tells us that the expected result of general revelation is not only worship but the “hope of future life.”  So why don’t people get it?  Calvin’s answer:

So great is our stupidity, so dull are we in regard to these bright manifestations, that we derive no benefit from them. For in regard to the fabric and admirable arrangement of the universe, how few of us are there who, in lifting our eyes to the heavens, or looking abroad on the various regions of the earth, ever think of the Creator? Do we not rather overlook Him, and sluggishly content ourselves with a view of his works? And then in regard to supernatural events, though these are occurring every day, how few are there who ascribe them to the ruling providence of God—how many who imagine that they are casual results produced by the blind evolutions of the wheel of chance? Even when, under the guidance and direction of these events, we are in a manner forced to the contemplation of God, (a circumstance which all must occasionally experience,) and are thus led to form some impressions of Deity, we immediately fly off to carnal dreams and depraved fictions, and so by our vanity corrupt heavenly truth. This far, indeed, we differ from each other, in that every one appropriates to himself some peculiar error; but we are all alike in this, that we substitute monstrous fictions for the one living and true God—a disease not confined to obtuse and vulgar minds, but affecting the noblest, and those who, in other respects, are singularly acute.…  while the government of the world places the doctrine of providence beyond dispute, the practical result is the same as if it were believed that all things were carried hither and thither at the caprice of chance; so prone are we to vanity and error.

What do we do, then, given this combination of a sense of deity, a double revelation of creation and providence combined with a fallen depraved nature?  We become idolaters, inventing, or following the presumptuous and wanton invention of gods we can approve.  “Like water gushing forth from a large and copious spring, immense crowds of gods have issued from the human mind, every man giving himself full license, and devising some peculiar form of divinity, to meet his own views.”  He mentions the Stoics, Egyptian mystics, and Epicurean takes on this.  This is very important for us.  These three may be thought of as examples of three categories of non-Christian thinking which have always been around in some form and are quite popular today.  Today’s Stoics are those who believe in the god of fate or determinism, “what will be, will be.”  The outcome is inevitable so bear it.  The mystics of today include, among many others, the “spiritual without being religious,” people who believe that what is ultimate is one’s individual experience.  The Epicureans of today are those who essentially make a god of science and rationality and living the pleasurable (but not foolish) life because this is the only one you get. 

There is lot of important insight here.  One point I thought was good was his observation that people use the diversity of religious opinion as a reason to doubt the truth of any one.   He says,

   This endless variety and confusion emboldened the Epicureans, and other gross despisers of piety, to cut off all sense of God. For when they saw that the wisest contradicted each other, they hesitated not to infer from their dissensions, and from the frivolous and absurd doctrines of each, that men foolishly, and to no purpose, brought torment upon themselves by searching for a God, there being none: and they thought this inference safe, because it was better at once to deny God altogether, than to feign uncertain gods, and thereafter engage in quarrels without end.

This has been a common theme of the “enlightened” down to our own day.

Okay, let’s reiterate, 1) Calvin says Creation and Providence provide us with a revelation of God and, in agreement with Paul, he says that by them we “know God.”  That is, we might say we know God like we know when we open our eyes heavenward that the Sun is imparting light and heat.  We may close our eyes to it, may put on dark glasses, deny it, may claim that it is an illusion, pretend to be uncertain of it, etc., but we know, nevertheless.  However, 2) while the revelation is always there, and we could find God of if received it, so thoroughly have we succeeded in blinding ourselves to this revelation that we have rendered our knowledge gained to be sufficient to condemn us, but insufficient to save us.  3)  It is now necessary that something else be added for the attainment of a saving knowledge of God.  This is faith.  Re-read the following comments.  Calvin says,    

In vain for us, therefore, does Creation exhibit so many bright lamps lighted up to show forth the glory of its Author. Though they beam upon us from every quarter, they are altogether insufficient of themselves to lead us into the right path. Some sparks, undoubtedly, they do throw out; but these are quenched before they can give forth a brighter effulgence. Wherefore, the apostle, in the very place where he says that the worlds are images of invisible things, adds that it is by faith we understand that they were framed by the word of God, (Heb. 11:3;) thereby intimating that the invisible Godhead is indeed represented by such displays, but that we have no eyes to perceive it until they are enlightened through faith by internal revelation from God. When Paul says that that which may be known of God is manifested by the creation of the world, he does not mean such a manifestation as may be comprehended by the wit of man, (Rom. 1:19;) on the contrary, he shows that it has no further effect than to render us inexcusable, (Acts 17:27.) And though he says, elsewhere, that we have not far to seek for God, inasmuch as he dwells within us, he shows, in another passage, to what extent this nearness to God is availing. God, says he, “in times past, suffered all nations to walk in their own ways. Nevertheless, he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness,” (Acts 14:16, 17.)

Again, Calvin’s language is so very far from that of so many of his would be followers.  Take for example the debate over “common grace.”  In the interest of the doctrine of irresistible grace and the divine command to believe the gospel, and in response to the way some evangelists present God as helpless to do more than knock on sinners hearts and beg them to let Christ in, some Calvinists respond by presenting God as only commanding and controlling and never appealing to men to believe.  But this is to go beyond Calvin; reading him in many places will reveal that he presents God as dealing with men as men, and not as mere passive stones.  This begins with general revelation and is not restricted to the appeal of Christ.  So, for instance, he says, “But though God is not left without a witness, while, with numberless varied acts of kindness, he woos men to the knowledge of himself, yet they cease not to follow their own ways, in other words, deadly errors.” 

Calvin is careful to insist that our defect is not an excuse.  “But though we are deficient in natural powers which might enable us to rise to a pure and clear knowledge of God, still, as the dulness which prevents us is within, there is no room for excuse.”  Most people would say, if we can’t do it, we can’t be expected to do it.”  Not so, says Calvin. His answer seems to be something like this, you are able to at least do your best to seek the Lord, but you are unwilling.  The theology of man’s inability will receive a great deal of attention over the next couple of centuries, but one thing Calvin says here will remain as a fixed guardrail in the discussion.  However you think of man’s inability to do good, it is a guilty inability and not an innocent one.  One cannot plead, for instance, “I did not know there was a God,” or” I did not know God ought to be worshipped,” because even depraved as he might be, the revelation of God, and the proof of His worthiness of man’s honor, are undeniable for anyone who has eyes to see, or ears to hear, or, he might add, a mind to be self-conscious.   

Later on Calvin will elaborate on our defect and how it came to be, but for now he is simply arguing that we have a seed of religion in us and sufficient divine revelation to move us to seek after God (as Paul says in Acts 17:27) and that men are blameworthy for not doing so.  This is confirmed by Calvin’s commentary on that verse from Paul’s Aereopagus (Mars Hill) address.  He says,

And, surely, nothing is more absurd, than that men should be ignorant of their Author, who are endued with understanding principally for this use. And we must especially note the goodness of God, in that he doth so familiarly insinuate himself, that even the blind may grope after him. For which cause the blindness of men is more shameful and intolerable, who, in so manifest and evident a manifestation, are touched with no feeling of God’s presence. Whithersoever they cast their eyes upward or downward, they must needs light upon lively and also infinite images of God’s power, wisdom, and goodness. For God hath not darkly shadowed his glory in the creation of the world, but he hath everywhere engraven such manifest marks, that even blind men may know them by groping. Whence we gather that men are not only blind but blockish, when, being helped by such excellent testimonies, they profit nothing.

Yet here ariseth a question, whether men can naturally come unto the true and merciful knowledge of God. For Paul doth give us to understand, that their own sluggishness is the cause that they cannot perceive that God is present; because, though they shut their eyes, yet may they grope after him. I answer, that their ignorance and blockishness is mixed with such frowardness, that, being void of right judgment, they pass over without understanding all such signs of God’s glory as appear manifestly both in heaven and earth. Yea, seeing that the true knowledge of God is a singular gift of his, and faith (by which alone he is rightly known) cometh only from the illumination of the Spirit, it followeth that our minds cannot pierce so far, having nature only for our guide. Neither doth Paul intreat in this place of the ability of men, but he doth only show that they be without excuse, when as they be so blind in such clear light, as he saith in the first chapter to the Romans, (Rom. 1:20.) Therefore, though men’s senses fail them in seeking out God, yet have they no cloak for their fault, because, though he offer himself to be handled and groped, they continue, notwithstanding, in a quandary; concerning which thing we have spoken more in the fourteenth chapter, (Acts 14:17.)

Though he be not far from every one of us. To the end he may the more touch the frowardness of men, he saith that God is not to be sought through many crooks, neither need we make any long journey to find him; because every man shall find him in himself, if so be that he will take any heed. By which experience we are convicted that our dulness is not without fault, which we had from the fault of Adam. For though no corner of the world be void of the testimony of God’s glory, yet we need not go without ourselves to lay hold upon him. For he doth affect and move every one of us inwardly with his power in such sort, that our blockishness is like to a monster, in that in feeling him we feel him not. In this respect certain of the philosophers called man the little world, [a microcosm;] because he is above all other creatures a token of God’s glory, replenished with infinite miracles.