Calvin on God's "repentance"

As to repentance, we must hold that it can no more exist in God than ignorance, or error, or impotence. If no man knowingly or willingly reduces himself to the necessity of repentance, we cannot attribute repentance to God without saying either that he knows not what is to happen, or that he cannot evade it, or that he rushes precipitately and inconsiderately into a resolution, and then forthwith regrets it. But so far is this from the meaning of the Holy Spirit, that in the very mention of repentance he declares that God is not influenced by any feeling of regret, that he is not a man that he should repent. And it is to be observed, that, in the same chapter, both things are so conjoined, that a comparison of the passages admirably removes the appearance of contradiction. When it is said that God repented of having made Saul king, the term change is used figuratively. Shortly after, it is added, “The Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent; for he is not a man, that he should repent,” (1Sam. 15:29). In these words, his immutability is plainly asserted without figure. Wherefore it is certain that, in administering human affairs, the ordination of God is perpetual and superior to every thing like repentance. That there might be no doubt of his constancy, even his enemies are forced to bear testimony to it. For, Balaam, even against his will, behaved to break forth into this exclamation, “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: has he said, and shall he not do it? or has he spoken, and shall he not make it good?” (Num. 23:19).

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (trans. Henry Beveridge; Accordance electronic ed. Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845), n.p.

Making sense of calamity by Calvin

Book I chapter 17.1

We must use modesty, not as it were compelling God to render an account, but so revering his hidden judgements as to account his will the best of all reasons. When the sky is overcast with dense clouds, and a violent tempest arises, the darkness which is presented to our eye, and the thunder which strikes our ears, and stupefies all our senses with terror, make us imagine that every thing is thrown into confusion, though in the firmament itself all continues quiet and serene. In the same way, when the tumultuous aspect of human affairs unfits us for judging, we should still hold, that God, in the pure light of his justice and wisdom, keeps all these commotions in due subordination, and conducts them to their proper end. And certainly in this matter many display monstrous infatuation, presuming to subject the works of God to their calculation, and discuss his secret counsels, as well as to pass a precipitate judgement on things unknown, and that with greater license than on the doings of mortal men. What can be more preposterous than to show modesty toward our equals, and choose rather to suspend our judgement than incur the blame of rashness, while we petulantly insult the hidden judgements of God, judgements which it becomes us to look up to and revere.

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (trans. Henry Beveridge; Accordance electronic ed. Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845), n.p.

John Calvin on the workings of Satan

1.14.17. With regard to the strife and war which Satan is said to wage with God, it must be understood with this qualification, that Satan cannot possibly do anything against the will and consent of God. For we read in the history of Job, that Satan appears in the presence of God to receive his commands, and dares not proceed to execute any enterprise until he is authorised. In the same way, when Ahab was to be deceived, he undertook to be a lying spirit in the mouth of all the prophets; and on being commissioned by the Lord, proceeds to do so. For this reason, also, the spirit which tormented Saul is said to be an evil spirit from the Lord, because he was, as it were, the scourge by which the misdeeds of the wicked king were punished. In another place it is said that the plagues of Egypt were inflicted by God through the instrumentality of wicked angels. In conformity with these particular examples, Paul declares generally that unbelievers are blinded by God, though he had previously described it as the doing of Satan. It is evident, therefore, that Satan is under the power of God, and is so ruled by his authority, that he must yield obedience to it. Moreover, though we say that Satan resists God, and does works at variance with His works, we at the same time maintain that this contrariety and opposition depend on the permission of God. I now speak not of Satan’s will and endeavour, but only of the result. For the disposition of the devil being wicked, he has no inclination whatever to obey the divine will, but, on the contrary, is wholly bent on contumacy and rebellion. This much, therefore, he has of himself, and his own iniquity, that he eagerly, and of set purpose, opposes God, aiming at those things which he deems most contrary to the will of God. But as God holds him bound and fettered by the curb of his power, he executes those things only for which permission has been given him, and thus, however unwilling, obeys his Creator, being forced, whenever he is required, to do Him service.

-John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (trans. Henry Beveridge; Accordance electronic ed. Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1845), n.p.

Some gleanings on Systematic Theology

Too often we get focused on specific biblical issues without seeing what else is out there. That is, I know of people who seem to study nothing else other than the Biblical texts which relate to the Calvinism/Arminian debate. And there are others who seem to study and discuss nothing other than Trinitarianism; whether they are for it or against it. But one thing that people lack, including myself, is a cohesive and comprehensive understanding of Scripture as a whole. That is, if the Bible is God's Word, then we should not view it as sets of verses or different books piled together. Instead, we should view it as one book. But to do this, we need to be able to take a step back and be able to see how the Bibles eschatology, ecclesiology, soteriology, Christology all work out together. For instance, if you have never taken the time to study eschatology or baptism, how do you know the manner in which this might impact your view on the nature of God? Could your understanding on these subjects impact how you understand, let's say, the identity of Christ? The simple answer is, you don't know.

This is why i'm taking the time to study SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY a little bit each day. Why? Because it forces you to systematize your individual beliefs into one cohesive unit. That is, it sharpens the consistency of your beliefs. If your Christology puts you at odds with your eschatology, then one of them needs to be corrected.

Right now i'm reading through Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion. I'm sure a lot of people have a bad taste in their mouth when they hear Calvin's name. But there is no denying the fact that his "systematic theology" is nothing short of brilliant in offering a cohesive and comprehensive look at the Bible as a whole. Now, I certainly do not agree with everything Calvin says. But that is not the point of reading a systematic theology. As you read, you critique the views offered and formulate your own. This way, you not only research topics you never thought about before, but you sharpen and refine views you might already hold strongly to.

If you are a student of theology, pick up a systematic theology today and read it alongside your daily Bible readings. And i'm not saying this in a "Bible study aid" sort of way. In fact, forget the actual views that your particular systematic theology espouses. Look at the subject itself and ask yourself, "I see how Calvin (or whoever else) is forming his view on this, but how would I form mine? As I read through today's biblical texts, do my understandings of, let's say, ecclesiology jive with what Romans 4 teaches about salvation?"

With that said, i'd like to share what I read in Calvin's Institutes (who knows how often i'll do this) to see what anyone else thinks, whether they agree or disagree.

Book One, Chapter 13: section 20

Then, that the name Jehovah, taken indefinitely, may be applied to Christ, is clear from the words of Paul, “For this thing I besought the Lord thrice.” After giving the answer, “My grace is sufficient for thee,” he subjoins, “that the power of Christ may rest upon me” (2 Cor. 12:8 , 9 ). For it is certain that the name of Lord ( Kuriou ) is there put for Jehovah, and, therefore, to restrict it to the person of the Mediator were puerile and frivolous, the words being used absolutely, and not with the view of comparing the Father and the Son. And we know that, in accordance with the received usage of the Greeks, the apostles uniformly substitute the word Kurios for Jehovah. Not to go far for an example, Paul besought the Lord in the same sense in which Peter quotes the passage of Joel, “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Acts 2:21 ; Joel 2:28 ). Where this name is specially applied to the Son, there is a different ground for it, as will be seen in its own place; at present it is sufficient to remember, that Paul, after praying to God absolutely, immediately subjoins the name of Christ.

(By the way, I much prefer McNeill's translation of Calvin better than this one. But this came from my Bible software and was easier to copy and paste)