Professor Gordon Clark,
in his approach to the problem of evil says the following;
"The aim of this chapter
is to face the question of evil squarely, without dodging, and to
show that, whereas various other views disintegrate at this point,
the system known as Calvinism and expressed in the Westminster Confession
of Faith offers a satisfactory and completely logical answer."
Religion Reason &
Revelation; Trinity Foundation; p194
With this introductory
statement Clark then launches into his study of the problem of evil in
which, among other things, he utterly demolishes any idea that Permission
answers it. And this, says Clark, is Calvinism. Yet there are those
who stubbornly insist, despite what both Clark & Calvin have written
on the matter, that John Calvin believed in Permission with respect to
evil. Therefore, it is my propose in this paper simply to offer excerpts
from the writings of Mr. Calvin showing that he, remaining true & consistent
with his views of God's sovereignty, most surely did not believe in Permission...
at all! I begin by pointing out that of all that Calvin wrote on
the subject, he has penned a whole section in his Institutes which militates
against the idea of Permission. Here I shall cite the entire section
for all to see & judge for themselves as to what Calvin thought of
Permission. My own comments will be placed in square brackets [like
this]. As we go thru this material keep in mind the John Calvin was
no neophyte when it comes to communicating his mind on a matter.
One of the reasons why his works leave such a lasting impression on Christianity
was his ability to make himself clearly understood. The reference
is Book 1; chapter 18; section 1 of his Institutes. It is entitled;
This last chapter of
the First Book consists of three parts:
I. It having been said above that God bends all the reprobate, and even
Satan himself, at his will, three objections are stated. First, that this
happens by the permission, not by the will of God. To this objection
there is a twofold reply, the one, that angels and men, good and
bad, do nothing but what is appointed by God; the second, that all movements
are secretly directed to their end by the hidden inspiration of God, sec.
1, 2.
[One would be hard
pressed to show God 'bending' both the reprobate and Satan by means of
some sort of Permission. Rather he cites the idea of Permission as
an "objection against" such sovereignty! If he held to Permission
in any shape whatever he certainly neglects to mention it in this section.
This is not like him for as I pointed out Calvin was well able to make
himself clear in his meaning. Rather, Calvin points out that movements
of the creature are the result both of God's 'appointment' and His 'hidden
inspiration'! Such terms hardly convey Permission.]
Sections.
1.The carnal mind the source of the objections which are raised against
the Providence of God. A primary objection, making a distinction
between the permission and the will of God, refuted. Angels and men, good
and bad, do nought but what has been decreed by God. This proved by examples.
2. All hidden movements directed to their end by the unseen but righteous
instigation of God. Examples, with answers to objections.
[Again... "instigation" hardly involves... Permission.]
3.These objections originate in a spirit of pride and blasphemy. Objection,
that there must be two contrary wills in God, refuted. Why the one simple
will of God seems to us as if it were manifold.
4. Objection, that God is the author of sin, refuted by examples. Augustine's
answer and admonition.
[ Here we see that
Calvin is going to show that those who object to God's sovereignty by seeking
refuge in Permission are guilty of pride & blasphemy! Further
his purpose is to also show that the rejection of Permission in no way
makes God the author of sin. Next follows section one proper.]
From other passages, in which God is said to draw or bend Satan himself,
and all the reprobate, to his will, a more difficult question arises. For
the carnal mind can scarcely comprehend how, when acting by their means,
he contracts no taint from their impurity, nay, how, in a common operation,
he is exempt from all guilt, and can justly condemn his own ministers.
Hence a distinction has been invented between doing and permitting because
to many it seemed altogether inexplicable how Satan and all the wicked
are so under the hand and authority of God, that he directs their malice
to whatever end he pleases, and employs their iniquities to execute his
judgements. The modesty of those who are thus alarmed at the appearance
of absurdity might perhaps be excused, did they not endeavour to vindicate
the justice of God from every semblance of stigma by defending an untruth.
It seems absurd that man should be blinded by the will and command of God,
and yet be forthwith punished for his blindness. Hence, recourse is had
to the evasion that this is done only by the permission, and not also by
the will of God. He himself, however, openly declaring that he does this,
repudiates the evasion. That men do nothing save at the secret instigation
of God, and do not discuss and deliberate on any thing but what he has
previously decreed with himself and brings to pass by his secret direction,
is proved by numberless clear passages of Scripture. What we formerly quoted
from the Psalms, to the effect that he does whatever pleases him (Ps. 115:3),
certainly extends to all the actions of men. If God is the arbiter of peace
and war, as is there said, and that without any exception, who will venture
to say that men are borne along at random with a blind impulse, while He
is unconscious or quiescent?
But the matter will be made clearer by special examples. From the first
chapter of Job we learn that Satan appears in the presence of God to receive
his orders, just as do the angels who obey spontaneously (Job 1:6; 2:1).
The manner and the end are different, but still the fact is, that he cannot
attempt anything without the will of God. But though afterwards his power
to afflict the saint seems to be only a bare permission, yet as the sentiment
is true, "The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; as it pleased the
Lord, so it has been done," we infer that God was the author of that trial
of which Satan and wicked robbers were merely the instruments. Satan's
aim is to drive the saint to madness by despair. The Sabeans cruelly and
wickedly make a sudden incursion to rob another of his goods. Job acknowledges
that he was deprived of all his property, and brought to poverty, because
such was the pleasure of God. Therefore, whatever men or Satan himself
devise, God holds the helm, and makes all their efforts contribute to the
execution of his judgements. God wills that the perfidious Ahab should
be deceived; the devil offers his agency for that purpose, and is sent
with a definite command to be a lying spirit in the mouth of all the prophets,
(2 Kings 22:20,22.) If the blinding and infatuation of Ahab is a judgement
from God, the fiction of bare permission is at an end; for it would be
ridiculous for a judge only to permit, and not also to decree, what he
wishes to be done at the very time that he commits the execution of it
to his ministers.
The Jews purposed to destroy Christ. Pilate and the soldiers indulged them
in their fury; yet the disciples confess in solemn prayer that all the
wicked did nothing but what the hand and counsel of God had decreed, (Acts
4:28,) just as Peter had previously said in his discourse, that Christ
was delivered to death by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of
God, (Acts 2:23;) in other words, that God, to whom all things are known
from the beginning, had determined what the Jews had executed. He repeats
the same thing elsewhere, "Those things, which God before had showed by
the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he has so fulfilled,"
(Acts 3:18.)
Absalom incestuously defiling his father's bed, perpetrates a detestable
crime (II Sam. 16:22). God, however, declares that it was his work; for
the words are, "Thou midst it secretly, but I will do this thing before
all Israel, and before the sun." (II Sam. 12:12.)
The cruelties of the Chaldeans in Judea are declared by Jeremiah to be
the work of God (Jer. 1:15; 7:14; 50:25). For which reason, Nebuchadnezzar
is called the servant of God (Jer. 25:9; cf. ch. 27:6). God frequently
exclaims, that by his hiss (Isa. 7:18 or 5:26), by the clang of his trumpet
(Hos. 8:1), by his authority and command, the wicked are excited to war
(cf. Zeph. 2:1). He calls the Assyrian the rod of his anger (Isa. 10:5p),
and the axe which he wields in his hand (cf. Matt 3:10). The overthrow
of the city and downfall of the temple, he calls his own work (Isa. 28:21).
David, not murmuring against God, but acknowledging him to be a just judge,
confesses that the curses of Shimei are uttered by his orders (II Sam.
16:10). "The Lord," says he, "has bidden him curse." (II Sam. 16:11.) Often
in sacred history whatever happens is said to proceed from the Lord, as
the revolt of the ten tribes (I Kings 11:31), the death of Eli's sons (I
Sam. 2:34), and very many others of a similar description. Those who have
a tolerable acquaintance with the Scriptures see that, with a view to brevity,
I am only producing a few out of many passages, from which it is perfectly
clear that it is the merest trifling to substitute a bare permission for
the providence of God, as if he sat in a watch-tower waiting for fortuitous
events, his judgements meanwhile depending on the will of man.
I have met at least
one overtly stubborn mule who has attempted to build a case on the word
'bare' and tried to say that John Calvin did believe in Permission... just
not a so-called 'bare' permission! Aside from the fact that nowhere in
all of his writings did Calvin ever teach Permission of any kind with respect
to the problem of evil, let us keep in mind that Clark refers to his answer
to evil as Calvinism. Calvin in this very section refers to Permission
as an untruth! He contrasts Permission with such items as... the
will of God; *doing*; as being under the *hand and authority*
of God; and God *directs* their malice to whatever end he pleases,
and *employs* their iniquities to execute his judgements. He says that
men are blinded by the *command* of God. When a general issues a command
to his forces... is he somehow 'giving them permission' to obey? That's
not only ludicrous... it's indicative of the fact that one is indeed blinded
to the truth of the God of Scripture. If ever there was an opportunity
for Calvin to clarify what 'kind' of Permission he held to it is here in
this section of his Institutes. But he does not say one word about
any 'kind' of permission he held. I say... was the great Reformer
asleep when he wrote this section? Not at all. John Calvin
was most clear in his writings and he most surely did not believe in Permission
of any kind. Rather, he shows himself a staunch defender of the absolute
sovereignty of the God of the Bible who holds all life in His hands.
HE calls the shots; HE decides who does what how when & where
each one of us will be born, live, die and spend eternity! Is this
the God you worship?