Commenting on Paul’s words in Romans 9, John Calvin candidly explains, “He concludes that God has mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth (Rom 9:18). You see how he refers both to the mere pleasure of God. Therefore, if we cannot assign any reason for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just that it so pleases him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his will”[1] (emphasis added).
Again, Calvin averred, “By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.”[2]
Never tiring of extolling the singular determiner of damnation as God’s pleasure, he declares, “We say, then, that Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his pleasure to doom to destruction“[3] (emphasis added). Calvin classifies God’s good pleasure to doom this innumerable group of people, whom he created, to such an unalterable fate, which he did not have to so choose as “incomprehensible judgment.”[4] Similarly, the Canons of Dordt assert, “We say, then, that the scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his good pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his good pleasure to doom to destruction“[5] (emphasis added).
Therefore, in unmistakable fashion, consistent Calvinism believes that according to a conscious and voluntarily deliberate act, God did, in fact, unalterably predestine what appears to be the vast majority of the human race to eternal torment in hell because of only one stated reason: it pleased him. That they deserved such an eternal existence fails to mitigate this truth one whit since everyone deserves damnation; therefore, alluding to such is merely an obfuscation. Moreover, even if the Calvinist seeks refuge in claiming to believe in passive or consequential reprobation, i.e., God simply was not pleased to elect them to salvation, the motive and purpose are the same.
Accordingly, it is not merely the dreaded hyper-Calvinists who believe in double predestination, for the belief does, in fact, encompass everyone who is committed to the tenets of Calvinism. And this in spite of one’s position regarding the order of decrees, which actually change eternal destinies not one whit since God has predestined every person to heaven or hell either by divine decree or as a consequence of unconditional election wrought by selective regeneration; thus, the eternality of every person is determined by only one thing, and that is what pleased God. Correspondingly, had it pleased him, apparently, he could have saved each and every one of the damned. This is a disquieting reality of Calvinism.
William G. T. Shedd references similar comments made by Augustine and Calvin, saying, “Both Augustine and Calvin had particular reference, in this connection, to the first origin of sin in angels and men. But their statement holds true of the continuance of sin in angels and men. When God passes by all the fallen and sinful angels and does not regenerate and save any of them, it is by a positive voluntary decision that might have been different had he so pleased. He could have saved them. And when God passes by some fallen and sinful men and does not regenerate and save them, this also is a positive voluntary decision that might have been different had he so pleased. He could have saved them“[6] (emphasis added).
I must admit that I do weary of Calvinist forays into proffering supposedly palliative notions for such beliefs that creatively seek to portray God as salvifically loving the very ones whom it pleased him to damn (two wills, different kinds of love, inscrutable mystery, etc.). The truth is that the Calvinist belief in reprobation (the nonelect people) serves to effectively disembowel all Calvinist endeavors to demonstrate that God salvifically loves anyone other than the unconditionally elected.
Actually, according to Calvinism (considering the concepts of compatibilism and unconditional election), it does seem that God would be more loving in electing even one more person unto salvation (as it presently appears to obviously be the case in light of his choosing all the elect today when he could have just chosen one). Even if God had limited the preordained damned to just one person, that still raises the question of why the one who is the sum of perfect love did not elect him to salvation as well, if the only reason left is to demonstrate his full glory by display of his love and wrath. Because showing his wrath and his judgment upon the devil and Christ accomplished that (see my article, Is Reprobation Necessary for God to Demonstrate His Holiness and Wrath?).
The unprejudiced truth is that Calvinism does, in fact, ascribe to the belief that God does not salvifically love everyone and truly desire everyone to be saved since if he did, according to decretal theology and compatibilism, they would be. Therefore, my modest request is that Calvinists be as forthright in all their writings, sermons, and prayers regarding this inescapable reality of consistent historic Calvinism as they are about Calvinism’s more palatable aspects.
If a Calvinist is reticent to do so, it might behoove him to reconsider his allegiance to a system of soteriology that indisputably entails such beliefs. Moreover, a lack of consistent clarity in such a vital realm of doctrine is a monstrous impediment to meaningful brotherly dialogue so that people can make an informed decision about whether to either embrace Calvinism or remain one if they are already a Calvinist.
Regarding this obvious reality, R.C. Sproul says, “It was certainly loving of God to predestine the salvation of His people, those the Bible calls the ‘elect’ or ‘chosen ones.’ It is the non-elect that are the problem. If some people are not elected unto salvation then it would seem that God is not all that loving toward them. For them it seems that it would have been more loving of God not to have allowed them to be born. That may indeed be the case“[7] (emphasis added). This is what I mean when I have, in previous articles, contended that God’s salvific love for the non-elect is virtually indistinguishable from indifference or hate.
When time is no more and hell is populated to the full measure of God’s design (according to Calvinism’s view of what pleased God), will anyone inside or outside of hell be able to perceive an eternal difference between Calvinism’s concept of God’s love for the damned and if we simply called such his unmitigated hatred? I think not.
[1] John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 1997).
[2] John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, translated by Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1997), 2:206 (book 3, chapter 21, section 5).
[3] Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, 2:210–11 (book 3, chapter 21, section 7).
[4] Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, 2:211 (book 3, chapter 21, section 7).
[5] Canons of Dordt, First Head of Doctrine, 3:21:7.
[6] William G.T. Shedd, Calvinism: Pure and Mixed – A Defence of the Westminster Standards (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1893), http://www.archive.org/stream/calvinismpuremix00shed#page/n5/mode/2up, 95.
[7] R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 1986) 21.
