Calvin affirms that the soul is the “proper seat” of the image of God. He then goes on to say that the physical body is not without consideration, since Christ became incarnate (p186-7). But do we not, as Christians, also reflect the image of God in our actions? And arguably, if no human action is without pure or perfect motive, then could those considered to be reprobate not also reflect the image of God through their actions to some degree? Paul teaches that no one does anything pleasing to God (Rom.3:12) before his effectual call to salvation, through which obedience occurs (Rom.12:1). So, where is the happy median between these teachings, and how do we understand the image of God if the soul is the only part of human beings that is emphasized, according to Calvin? I think that human value outside of being God’s elect is intrinsically connected to the image of God that all people bear as God’s creation. That is not to say that all human beings are pleasing to God because they reflect his image in some fashion, clearly they are not. But, could it be possible that God’s common grace works in such a way with even the reprobate, that because they bear the image of God their depravity is somehow not as bad as it could be? And if this is the case, is the image of God reflected in degree, being as that some are far more depraved than others, judging from their actions alone (e.g. child molestation versus occasionally jaywalking)? I am not sure if there is any correlation between one’s level of sin, and the degree to which they reflect the image of God, but I do think that it is possible for our actions, whether Christian or not, to reflect the image of God aside from our motives. And do we reflect the image of God more and more through the process of sanctification? Clearly we are supposed to grow in our likeness to Christ, but does that mean we also increase in the original, intrinsic quality of our soul, i.e., “the image of God”?
Michael,
You bring up some interesting points. I think you were right to conclude that Calvin puts the primary seat of the image of God with the soul, but not to the exclusion of the body (p. 186, 188). He says, “And although the primary seat of the divine image was in the mind and heart, or in the soul and its powers, yet there was no part of man, not even the body itself, in which some sparks did not glow (188).” All of man bears the image of God in some sense, though after the fall it was so grossly distorted and marred that it is barely recognizable. Calvin says that the best example of the image of God in man is seen in his redemption through Christ, in which his corrupted nature is restored (189). Aside from redemption, can we admit to differing degrees of an unbeliever bearing out the divine image? Well, in the sense that total depravity does not mean we are all as evil as we possible could be, there is a difference between Hitler and Gandhi. One has clearly suppressed, corrupted, and defiled that image more than the other. However, neither of them are actively pursuing God or Christlikeness with their actions, so their actions have a motive that is not the glory of God or done in faith. Therefore, there actions may or may not be good on a human level, but they still fall short of God’s standards. The unbeliever does not actively desire to reflect God’s image, but sparks of the divine image still remain, although horribly newfangled.
The Christian, however, can grow in the degree he reflects the divine image through sanctification and following the example of the God-Man, who is the image of God (2 Cor. 4:4). To grow in godliness is to grow in God-Likeness. When the Christian’s is redeemed inner nature or soul is being renewed day by day Paul says (2 Cor. 4:16.
Thanks Peter. I was trying to understand what role the image of God plays in bringing God glory, and if someone, who Calvin would consider to be reprobate, is capable through that image to glorify God in certain situations solely based on those distorted and corrupted divine sparks. So, thanks for the insight!
Michael,
Forgive my last entry. I did not take the time to proofread it, and as I looked over it again I noticed it was quite newfangled itself. With respect to the last paragraph, I meant to say that I do think that a renewal of the intrinsic quality of the divine image takes place in the redeemed. However, I also wanted to point out what Paul said in 2 Cor. 4:16 about the soul’s renewal in the process of sanctification. He says, “So we do not lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day.” God is invested from start to finish in completing his work of redemption in us (Phil. 1:6).
As we will see in BK 2, Calvin insists that God is “the” start and finish. I try to express this difference in my General Letters class when we cover Hebrews 6. For Calvin’s Perseverance is different than the oft quoted: once saved, always saved….
Michael said… “I was trying to understand what role the image of God plays in bringing God glory, and if someone, who Calvin would consider to be reprobate, is capable through that image to glorify God in certain situations solely based on those distorted and corrupted divine sparks. So, thanks for the insight!”
I think we need to define the glory of God. The questions that were raised were very thoughtful and sharp however the definition of bringing God glory needs to be further developed. I say this especially because some of the dangerous implications that may be drawn from saying that the unbeliever brings glory to God. In one sense I would agree that the unregenerate brings glory to God for the reprobate is brought to just judgment by God and thus when brought to eternal punishment satisfies the demands of God by being punished for the sins they commit and rightly deserve. furthermore, every human being both the elect and reprobate are involved in God’s sovereign rule of history and as we see Paul point out in Ephesians that God works all things after the counsel of his will so even the reprobate is under the sovereign plan of God. Therefore, although I would not go so far as saying that the reprobate brings glory to God I would never say that the reprobate frustrates the plans or de-glorifies God if that makes any sense. I also agree with you Michael that people are not all equally depraved. I thank God that not all people after the fall are as evil as they could be for the sinful state we now see the world in would be multiplied greatly if that were the case. I also agree that although the image of God was marred at the fall, it was not completely lost. The image of God is discussed in Genesis at creation and we see that God created them male and female to rule over the animals and the earth prior to the fall. After man fell into sin he is still clearly spoken of as being in the image of God in the New Testament. There are those theologians who make the assertion that the image of God is only seen in the life of the believer however I do not find any exegetical proof for that position. The fact that God created man in the image of God and not any other creature is the sole reason for elevating man high above the animals and treating them with dignity and greater worth than plants and baboons.
The primary reason I am wary about saying that the unregenerate brings glory to God is because he or she is under the wrath of God and are His enemy. There is nothing good in man whatsoever and although unbelievers can help old ladies across the street, and give generously to the poor, they are as Peter said “good” in the eyes of man but God views none good, and ultimately there is none righteous as we read in Romans 3. We must also point out that in the life of a believer there is none good (or righteous) in and of themselves and the only thing we bring to the table is our sin. The good we do after our conversion is solely by the grace of God and we have no room to boast.
There is also the danger of giving believers as well as unbelievers the wrong idea and if we say that unbelievers bring glory to God they may respond in the same way we see in Romans 6:1, “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?” Saying that unbelievers bring glory to God would give them the warrant to say that their sinful life and unrepentant heart is glorifying God and they could respond “who are you to judge me, for I am glorifying God.” Likewise, a professing believer could also harvest a license for immorality. If they believe that God is glorified from the wickedness of the unbeliever they may reason “God is also be glorified in my wickedness.”
In conclusion I want to address Romans 9:14-23 to give an explanation for how I view the reprobate and the Glory of God.
“What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will? “But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory”
In the above passage we see the reprobate Pharaoh playing into the purposes of God to proclaim His glory to all of the earth. However, I do not think we should say that Pharaoh brought glory to God with his unrepentant heart and wicked actions against the Jews. In other words, I would say that God is glorified in the demonstration of His wrath being poured out on the reprobate; however, the reprobate does not bring glory to God.
On a more personal note, whats up Mickey, Peter, and Michael? This is a great concept for further class discussion. It would be cool to see more classes create blogs for continuing discussion that just can’t fit in during the 3 hours a week spent in class. I wish I were there to hang out at Dr. Klink’s house and discuss Calvin and theology. Maybe next semester you all can meet at my apartment in Louisville. I will even provide the drinks and snacks. You will only have to take care of airfare and hotel.
Danny,
It’s good to hear from you. Welcome to the discussion my friend. I agree with you that it is helpful to define terms and I am simply going to add some nuancing to what you have already said. Would you agree that God is glorified in everything he does, and that his Providence assures that he will be glorified in all he does? He can use evil and wicked men for His glorious purposes, but hold them responsible for their wicked intentions and actions. He can rightly punish them for willful disobedience even though they are a part of His “secret plan” as Calvin says. God is working out his purposes in this world, yet man is responsible for the sinful actions he makes. Therefore, God can use Babylon or Assyria to Judge His people Israel, and yet still hold them responsible for their actions, but without being tainted with evil. Now, I think you were pointing out that man is not actively glorifying God in these actions but sinfully rebelling against God. The reprobate fall short of God’s glory or fail to give him glory with their attitude, actions, thoughts, and desires. Rebel sinners do not want to bring glory to God, but by nature are children of wrath (Eph. 2:1-3). Yet, God is not hindered in any way from bringing glory to Himself in his use and judgement of the unregenerate. With all this in mind, we still need to point out the error of the libertines, fatalists, and the like. So with God’s providence and man’s actions in view, we can say that God is always glorified on His part, even though sinners and the reprobate fail to give Him glory in their actions, attitudes, and desires. So we cannot say that the reprobate and unregenerate “give” God glory or honor, but we can say that God is glorified in their just judgment or usage (Rom. 9).
After graduating from Biola I was married in July of last year and moved to Louisville in September. Stacy and I spent a year adjusting to jobs, finding a church, and transitioning from California to Kentucky. Lord willing I will be starting seminary this fall. My application is being processed as we speak. I have heard of Dr Pennington and if I have a class with him I will tell him you say hello. Keep Michael and Peter in line for me. I look forward to hearing more about your class here on the blog. take care.
Peter said…”So we cannot say that the reprobate and unregenerate “give” God glory or honor, but we can say that God is glorified in their just judgment or usage (Rom. 9).”
Danny said…”In other words, I would say that God is glorified in the demonstration of His wrath being poured out on the reprobate; however, the reprobate does not bring glory to God.”
I think we are of a like mind! Good points Peter, we are both coming to the same conclusion. The discussion of God ordaining, using, sending, evil is a whole other discussion but I agree with what you had to say about that topic. Adios!
What kind of freedom does man have before the fall? What kind of freedom does he have after the fall? How does Calvin understand man’s freedom in relation to these two questions? Even if you are not in the Calvin class, we would enjoy hearing your thoughts on these issues?
How ought we think about free will? Calvin had some amazing insight on this very issue, and I think it would be helpful to reflect on his theological insight. First, when thinking about human freedom, we must always look at it with respect to the providence of God in creation. God is working out his plans for human history and everything is going according to his “secret plan” or decrees (Eph. 1:11). When we speak of man’s freedom in any sense, it must always be tempered by a proper understanding of divine sovereignty or providence. Absolutely nothing is out of God’s control, even salvation, as we shall see later in the Institutes. However, this does not mean that man is not free to choose or make choices according to his desires. Before the fall, Calvin maintains that Adam was free to choose good or bad, and had he chose rightly he would still be pure to this day (I.XV.8 or pg. 195). His will was not restrained such that he was unable to choose either good or bad, but temptation and sin plunged Adam and the human race into a fallen state. After the fall, man became corrupted by the heinous stain of original sin, such that all his faculties were contaminated and depraved. This includes the will. Man can no longer choose the good (Rom. 3:10-13; 8:7-8), but has become a slave to sin, and slaves are not free. Humanity is only free to do evil or follow their evil desires until divine grace rescues him from this wretched state (John 6:44; 8:34-36). So then, in what way is man free in his fallen state? Calvin replies, “Free from righteousness and enslaved to sin (II.II.10).” In fact, Calvin thinks we ought to abandon the term free-will because it carries with it too much baggage and is easily misunderstood.
Peter,
my apologies for not commenting on the above post, but I must re-visit our previous discussion on the glory of God and the unregenerate. When reading II.ii.15 & 16, Calvin suggests that the Spirit of God is moving even through those who are not the elect, revealing truths about the world, specifically in the sciences: “Whenever we come upon these matters in secular writers, let that admirable light of truth shining in them teach us that the mind of man, though fallen and perverted from its wholeness, is nevertheless clothed and ornamented with God’s excellent gifts. If we regard the Spirit of God as the sole fountain of truth, we shall neither reject the truth itself, nor despise it whenever it shall appear, unless we wish to dishonor the Spirit of God” (273-4). I mention this text only because Calvin seems to be saying that honor can be brought to God by means of his Spirit working through the unregenerate, and not merely in a case of judging the elect. This is not to say that anything good is being attributed to those who are under the wrath of God; I am affirming that no such good can be credited to the unregenerate. However, it is showing how much control God has over people, despite their corrupted and wicked natures. How then do we address your post above? If the Spirit of God is moving through the unregenerate, who I would also affirm do not have the freedom of the will to choose good, to produce things God would declare good, how can we understand this interaction between God and fallen man? Can the unregenerate bring honor to God while not personally honoring him?
Like I said before, unregenerate man can do “good” things in the eyes of man and even say or teach truth as it pertains to the sciences or other topics found outside of Scripture. They can proclaim that one plus one equals two and that is ultimately the truth even from God’s perspective. The fact that unregenerate man is not as sinful as they can be or as stupid (believing things that are false) as they can be does not negate the fact that they know nothing about God and do not have a Biblically true world and life view. Ultimately the truth is not in them and they are without eyes to see or ears to hear. I think that common grace is in view when discussing the apparently good things that unbelievers do and the virtues that they may demonstrate. I would not say that God is impressed with the reprobate because he at times rightly observes God’s general revelation all the while suppressing the truth in unrighteousness and continuing in sin and wickedness. As we observe in Romans chapter one the heathen in all that he does is bringing about God’s wrath because of his sin as opposed to bringing about the glory of God.
I’m not talking about finding good in the reprobate according to man. I am addressing Calvin’s comments on dishonoring the Spirit of God by not recognizing the truth that comes from these “secular writers,” who I assume are unregenerate; that truth, because it is from the Spirit of God, seemingly brings honor to God in some way. I am in agreement with you Danny regarding Romans 1 and the similar passages you quoted above.
Calvin seems to be saying that unregenerate people can come to some truth as it relates to the sciences and it is only by God’s grace that they can do this to begin with. I am in agreement with him on this point because the mere fact that God allows any of us to partake of good and true things is due to God’s graciousness. I can recognize when a secular writer and unregenerate person communicates the truth for example: one plus one equals two. However, what I was saying is that I am not sure if I want to go so far as concluding that they are God honoring due to the fact that they know math or can postulate scientific experiments.
Ultimately, everything that happens in history is apart of God’s sovereign plan and hence nothing happens outside of his good and wise purposes and therefore God is glorified in everything that He does. I believe that there must be a difference in the way that we talk about God’s children (the elect) bringing Him glory as opposed to the wicked (the reprobate) knowing scientific or mathematical truth. God uses the reprobate (Pharaoh) to demonstrate His glory to His people however due to the deadness and depravity of the natural man I am very hesitant to say that the unregenerate person brings glory to God.
We must remember that God is fully glorified and complete in and of Himself and does not look to fallen or redeemed man to add to His glory. When we speak about Christians bringing glory to God we need to realize that the glory that we bring to God or the good things that we do is a direct result of God’s work in our lives. Believers can bring glory to God by serving Him and doing good works that were prepared beforehand by God (see Ephesians). Therefore, only glory that God gets from man is a direct result of His grace regenerating people to begin with. Christians can never say that we bring glory to God in and of ourselves because all we bring to the table is our sin. In other words if God left us to ourselves and did not intervene we would continue in sin and never be saved. Our sin as well as the unbelievers sin is not glorifying to God. We may say that evil is part of God’s sovereign plan without ever saying that evil brings Him glory. “You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good.” God is glorified in the good that came from the evil human intent and actions, however, the wicked acts and deceit of Joseph’s brothers was not God honoring or glorifying to Him.
God’s glory is therefore independent in one sense because He doesn’t need any more glory from outside of Himself. God is also glorified when He takes completely depraved and helpless sinners and saves them from their deserved punishment. Furthermore, God is also glorified when His justice is served by punishing the wicked; however, the wicked never bring God glory. I have yet to find in Scripture any glory given to God from the wicked for discovering scientific truth. We should never point to an unbeliever and say “wow you are bringing glory to God for this or that” because the Bible never does such a thing. In fact, the Bible only attributes wrath and judgment to the wicked and reserves God’s love and grace for the elect. God has chosen to save some people and those whom he has saved bring Him glory and the unbelieving one’s only merit His wrath and judgment.
Danny, you said: “When we speak about Christians bringing glory to God we need to realize that the glory that we bring to God or the good things that we do is a direct result of God’s work in our lives,” and “Christians can never say that we bring glory to God in and of ourselves because all we bring to the table is our sin.” And I agree with you completely. You also said: “I have yet to find in Scripture any glory given to God from the wicked for discovering scientific truth,” and I’m sure you won’t. And I’m also sure that God’s elect bring him honor and glory in a way that the reprobate were never created to do. All I’m saying is that there seem to be some things which are produced at the hands of the unregenerate which can be used to honor God, not that any kind of merit is attributed to them for this, but, as you said, it is a part of God’s providence. I’m only trying to point out that the Spirit of God moves within the unregenerate in such a way that, without them being aware of it, and with no credit to themselves, God brings about particular truths which can be used for his glory.
Paul quotes two Epicurean or Stoic philosophers in Acts 17:28 within his argument, which, by the way, he is making to the glory of God. In this situation, Paul is not acquitting these philosophers of the guilt they have rightfully inherited. However, he is using their words to communicate truths about God to his audience. I am not saying that because someone can do simple arithmetic that this brings glory to God because mathematical truths are no less truths than theological ones. I was just trying to make sense of Calvin’s comments regarding the Spirit of God as the sole fountain of truth, that’s all. I think that understanding God’s interaction with those considered to be reprobate helps to fully grasp his sovereignty, and process how it is the elect are to relate to those God has decided to pass over.
I know that we are mostly in agreement however I think that this discussion can be moved forward if you can suggest what exactly is in view when you say that “the Spirit of God moves within the unregenerate in such a way that, without them being aware of it, and with no credit to themselves, God brings about particular truths which can be used for his glory.”
O Danny Boy!
So, let me try and clarify what it is I’m trying to say. In no way am I affirming that the Spirit of God indwells man as he does a Christian. May it never be! All I’m saying is that through God’s providence there are some truths spoken by the unregenerate which God can use to his honor and glory.
It has been nice discussing these things with you as well Danny!
Hello Fellas,
As I was reading through the Institutes’ section Michael had quoted earlier, I found some interesting things that might bring fuller context to our discussion. With respect to the creation of man, Calvin points out that God has given men both natural and supernatural gifts. He says, “And, indeed, that common opinion which they have taken from Augustine pleases me: that the natural gifts were corrupted in man through sin, but that his supernatural gifts were stripped from him (II.II.12).” Therefore, both Augustine and Calvin agree that God endowed man with supernatural and natural gifts at creation. What exactly are these gifts? Calvin maintains that the supernatural gifts are as follows: Faith, love for God, righteousness, charity towards neighbor, and zeal for holiness and for righteousness. All these supernatural gifts were lost at the fall, and no longer obtain in unregenerate men. However, the natural gifts were corrupted, but not lost. Those gifts include: reason, understanding, sense perception, and the will. All these things are part of the image of God in us, and are that which separate us from the brute beasts, as Danny and Calvin point out.
So, why am I getting into all this? First, Calvin maintains that these residual natural gifts are the basis for men having the capacity to do art or science. All men have an innate hunger for truth, according to Calvin. Calvin states, “For we see implanted in human nature some sort of desire to search out the truth to which man would not at all aspire if he had not already savored it (II.II.12 or p.271).” This is not to say men are seeking God or anything like that, but that man has a desire for truth. In fact, there would be nobody pursuing the sciences if this were not so. With this in mind, let us go back to the original discussion.
Calvin said, “Whenever we come upon these matters in secular writers, let that admirable light of truth shining in them teach us that the mind of man, though fallen and perverted from its wholeness, is nevertheless clothed and ornamented with God’s excellent gifts. If we regard the Spirit of God as the sole fountain of truth, we shall neither reject the truth itself, nor despise it whenever it shall appear, unless we wish to dishonor the Spirit of God” (273-4). God is the Author of all that is true, or to put it another way, the Spirit of God is the Spirit of truth. So, when we see scientists or philosophers stumbling around in the dark, and then, they stumble into a truth about God or creation (by God’s grace), they are “shinning forth truth” through their natural gifts of God in humanity. Not their truth, but God’s truth. They can do math or reason, because of the natural gifts they are endowed with (natural may be misleading, but the term refers to God given gifts that are common to all men. So, if we read Plato and come across the notion of the soul, we are not to reject the truth that man has a soul because we see it in a secular writer. That would dishonor the Spirit of truth, says Calvin. On the contrary, Paul was able to affirm the truth that secular writers stumble upon, as Michael has already pointed out.
The two of you have already pointed out the danger of how we apply God’s providence to this issue and some pitfalls, but we can all agree that unregenerate men do not seek to honor God, but God is glorified through his use of all people, especially the elect.
Calvin affirms that the soul is the “proper seat” of the image of God. He then goes on to say that the physical body is not without consideration, since Christ became incarnate (p186-7). But do we not, as Christians, also reflect the image of God in our actions? And arguably, if no human action is without pure or perfect motive, then could those considered to be reprobate not also reflect the image of God through their actions to some degree? Paul teaches that no one does anything pleasing to God (Rom.3:12) before his effectual call to salvation, through which obedience occurs (Rom.12:1). So, where is the happy median between these teachings, and how do we understand the image of God if the soul is the only part of human beings that is emphasized, according to Calvin? I think that human value outside of being God’s elect is intrinsically connected to the image of God that all people bear as God’s creation. That is not to say that all human beings are pleasing to God because they reflect his image in some fashion, clearly they are not. But, could it be possible that God’s common grace works in such a way with even the reprobate, that because they bear the image of God their depravity is somehow not as bad as it could be? And if this is the case, is the image of God reflected in degree, being as that some are far more depraved than others, judging from their actions alone (e.g. child molestation versus occasionally jaywalking)? I am not sure if there is any correlation between one’s level of sin, and the degree to which they reflect the image of God, but I do think that it is possible for our actions, whether Christian or not, to reflect the image of God aside from our motives. And do we reflect the image of God more and more through the process of sanctification? Clearly we are supposed to grow in our likeness to Christ, but does that mean we also increase in the original, intrinsic quality of our soul, i.e., “the image of God”?
Michael,
You bring up some interesting points. I think you were right to conclude that Calvin puts the primary seat of the image of God with the soul, but not to the exclusion of the body (p. 186, 188). He says, “And although the primary seat of the divine image was in the mind and heart, or in the soul and its powers, yet there was no part of man, not even the body itself, in which some sparks did not glow (188).” All of man bears the image of God in some sense, though after the fall it was so grossly distorted and marred that it is barely recognizable. Calvin says that the best example of the image of God in man is seen in his redemption through Christ, in which his corrupted nature is restored (189). Aside from redemption, can we admit to differing degrees of an unbeliever bearing out the divine image? Well, in the sense that total depravity does not mean we are all as evil as we possible could be, there is a difference between Hitler and Gandhi. One has clearly suppressed, corrupted, and defiled that image more than the other. However, neither of them are actively pursuing God or Christlikeness with their actions, so their actions have a motive that is not the glory of God or done in faith. Therefore, there actions may or may not be good on a human level, but they still fall short of God’s standards. The unbeliever does not actively desire to reflect God’s image, but sparks of the divine image still remain, although horribly newfangled.
The Christian, however, can grow in the degree he reflects the divine image through sanctification and following the example of the God-Man, who is the image of God (2 Cor. 4:4). To grow in godliness is to grow in God-Likeness. When the Christian’s is redeemed inner nature or soul is being renewed day by day Paul says (2 Cor. 4:16.
Thanks Peter. I was trying to understand what role the image of God plays in bringing God glory, and if someone, who Calvin would consider to be reprobate, is capable through that image to glorify God in certain situations solely based on those distorted and corrupted divine sparks. So, thanks for the insight!
Michael,
Forgive my last entry. I did not take the time to proofread it, and as I looked over it again I noticed it was quite newfangled itself. With respect to the last paragraph, I meant to say that I do think that a renewal of the intrinsic quality of the divine image takes place in the redeemed. However, I also wanted to point out what Paul said in 2 Cor. 4:16 about the soul’s renewal in the process of sanctification. He says, “So we do not lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day.” God is invested from start to finish in completing his work of redemption in us (Phil. 1:6).
Hello Peter and Michael,
As we will see in BK 2, Calvin insists that God is “the” start and finish. I try to express this difference in my General Letters class when we cover Hebrews 6. For Calvin’s Perseverance is different than the oft quoted: once saved, always saved….
Again, thanks for this website.
Michael said… “I was trying to understand what role the image of God plays in bringing God glory, and if someone, who Calvin would consider to be reprobate, is capable through that image to glorify God in certain situations solely based on those distorted and corrupted divine sparks. So, thanks for the insight!”
I think we need to define the glory of God. The questions that were raised were very thoughtful and sharp however the definition of bringing God glory needs to be further developed. I say this especially because some of the dangerous implications that may be drawn from saying that the unbeliever brings glory to God. In one sense I would agree that the unregenerate brings glory to God for the reprobate is brought to just judgment by God and thus when brought to eternal punishment satisfies the demands of God by being punished for the sins they commit and rightly deserve. furthermore, every human being both the elect and reprobate are involved in God’s sovereign rule of history and as we see Paul point out in Ephesians that God works all things after the counsel of his will so even the reprobate is under the sovereign plan of God. Therefore, although I would not go so far as saying that the reprobate brings glory to God I would never say that the reprobate frustrates the plans or de-glorifies God if that makes any sense. I also agree with you Michael that people are not all equally depraved. I thank God that not all people after the fall are as evil as they could be for the sinful state we now see the world in would be multiplied greatly if that were the case. I also agree that although the image of God was marred at the fall, it was not completely lost. The image of God is discussed in Genesis at creation and we see that God created them male and female to rule over the animals and the earth prior to the fall. After man fell into sin he is still clearly spoken of as being in the image of God in the New Testament. There are those theologians who make the assertion that the image of God is only seen in the life of the believer however I do not find any exegetical proof for that position. The fact that God created man in the image of God and not any other creature is the sole reason for elevating man high above the animals and treating them with dignity and greater worth than plants and baboons.
The primary reason I am wary about saying that the unregenerate brings glory to God is because he or she is under the wrath of God and are His enemy. There is nothing good in man whatsoever and although unbelievers can help old ladies across the street, and give generously to the poor, they are as Peter said “good” in the eyes of man but God views none good, and ultimately there is none righteous as we read in Romans 3. We must also point out that in the life of a believer there is none good (or righteous) in and of themselves and the only thing we bring to the table is our sin. The good we do after our conversion is solely by the grace of God and we have no room to boast.
There is also the danger of giving believers as well as unbelievers the wrong idea and if we say that unbelievers bring glory to God they may respond in the same way we see in Romans 6:1, “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?” Saying that unbelievers bring glory to God would give them the warrant to say that their sinful life and unrepentant heart is glorifying God and they could respond “who are you to judge me, for I am glorifying God.” Likewise, a professing believer could also harvest a license for immorality. If they believe that God is glorified from the wickedness of the unbeliever they may reason “God is also be glorified in my wickedness.”
In conclusion I want to address Romans 9:14-23 to give an explanation for how I view the reprobate and the Glory of God.
“What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will? “But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory”
In the above passage we see the reprobate Pharaoh playing into the purposes of God to proclaim His glory to all of the earth. However, I do not think we should say that Pharaoh brought glory to God with his unrepentant heart and wicked actions against the Jews. In other words, I would say that God is glorified in the demonstration of His wrath being poured out on the reprobate; however, the reprobate does not bring glory to God.
On a more personal note, whats up Mickey, Peter, and Michael? This is a great concept for further class discussion. It would be cool to see more classes create blogs for continuing discussion that just can’t fit in during the 3 hours a week spent in class. I wish I were there to hang out at Dr. Klink’s house and discuss Calvin and theology. Maybe next semester you all can meet at my apartment in Louisville. I will even provide the drinks and snacks. You will only have to take care of airfare and hotel.
Hey Danny,
How is SBTS? Say hello to Dr. Pennington for me. We miss you around here….
-MK
Danny,
It’s good to hear from you. Welcome to the discussion my friend. I agree with you that it is helpful to define terms and I am simply going to add some nuancing to what you have already said. Would you agree that God is glorified in everything he does, and that his Providence assures that he will be glorified in all he does? He can use evil and wicked men for His glorious purposes, but hold them responsible for their wicked intentions and actions. He can rightly punish them for willful disobedience even though they are a part of His “secret plan” as Calvin says. God is working out his purposes in this world, yet man is responsible for the sinful actions he makes. Therefore, God can use Babylon or Assyria to Judge His people Israel, and yet still hold them responsible for their actions, but without being tainted with evil. Now, I think you were pointing out that man is not actively glorifying God in these actions but sinfully rebelling against God. The reprobate fall short of God’s glory or fail to give him glory with their attitude, actions, thoughts, and desires. Rebel sinners do not want to bring glory to God, but by nature are children of wrath (Eph. 2:1-3). Yet, God is not hindered in any way from bringing glory to Himself in his use and judgement of the unregenerate. With all this in mind, we still need to point out the error of the libertines, fatalists, and the like. So with God’s providence and man’s actions in view, we can say that God is always glorified on His part, even though sinners and the reprobate fail to give Him glory in their actions, attitudes, and desires. So we cannot say that the reprobate and unregenerate “give” God glory or honor, but we can say that God is glorified in their just judgment or usage (Rom. 9).
Dr. Klink,
After graduating from Biola I was married in July of last year and moved to Louisville in September. Stacy and I spent a year adjusting to jobs, finding a church, and transitioning from California to Kentucky. Lord willing I will be starting seminary this fall. My application is being processed as we speak. I have heard of Dr Pennington and if I have a class with him I will tell him you say hello. Keep Michael and Peter in line for me. I look forward to hearing more about your class here on the blog. take care.
-Danny
Peter said…”So we cannot say that the reprobate and unregenerate “give” God glory or honor, but we can say that God is glorified in their just judgment or usage (Rom. 9).”
Danny said…”In other words, I would say that God is glorified in the demonstration of His wrath being poured out on the reprobate; however, the reprobate does not bring glory to God.”
I think we are of a like mind! Good points Peter, we are both coming to the same conclusion. The discussion of God ordaining, using, sending, evil is a whole other discussion but I agree with what you had to say about that topic. Adios!
What kind of freedom does man have before the fall? What kind of freedom does he have after the fall? How does Calvin understand man’s freedom in relation to these two questions? Even if you are not in the Calvin class, we would enjoy hearing your thoughts on these issues?
How ought we think about free will? Calvin had some amazing insight on this very issue, and I think it would be helpful to reflect on his theological insight. First, when thinking about human freedom, we must always look at it with respect to the providence of God in creation. God is working out his plans for human history and everything is going according to his “secret plan” or decrees (Eph. 1:11). When we speak of man’s freedom in any sense, it must always be tempered by a proper understanding of divine sovereignty or providence. Absolutely nothing is out of God’s control, even salvation, as we shall see later in the Institutes. However, this does not mean that man is not free to choose or make choices according to his desires. Before the fall, Calvin maintains that Adam was free to choose good or bad, and had he chose rightly he would still be pure to this day (I.XV.8 or pg. 195). His will was not restrained such that he was unable to choose either good or bad, but temptation and sin plunged Adam and the human race into a fallen state. After the fall, man became corrupted by the heinous stain of original sin, such that all his faculties were contaminated and depraved. This includes the will. Man can no longer choose the good (Rom. 3:10-13; 8:7-8), but has become a slave to sin, and slaves are not free. Humanity is only free to do evil or follow their evil desires until divine grace rescues him from this wretched state (John 6:44; 8:34-36). So then, in what way is man free in his fallen state? Calvin replies, “Free from righteousness and enslaved to sin (II.II.10).” In fact, Calvin thinks we ought to abandon the term free-will because it carries with it too much baggage and is easily misunderstood.
Peter,
my apologies for not commenting on the above post, but I must re-visit our previous discussion on the glory of God and the unregenerate. When reading II.ii.15 & 16, Calvin suggests that the Spirit of God is moving even through those who are not the elect, revealing truths about the world, specifically in the sciences: “Whenever we come upon these matters in secular writers, let that admirable light of truth shining in them teach us that the mind of man, though fallen and perverted from its wholeness, is nevertheless clothed and ornamented with God’s excellent gifts. If we regard the Spirit of God as the sole fountain of truth, we shall neither reject the truth itself, nor despise it whenever it shall appear, unless we wish to dishonor the Spirit of God” (273-4). I mention this text only because Calvin seems to be saying that honor can be brought to God by means of his Spirit working through the unregenerate, and not merely in a case of judging the elect. This is not to say that anything good is being attributed to those who are under the wrath of God; I am affirming that no such good can be credited to the unregenerate. However, it is showing how much control God has over people, despite their corrupted and wicked natures. How then do we address your post above? If the Spirit of God is moving through the unregenerate, who I would also affirm do not have the freedom of the will to choose good, to produce things God would declare good, how can we understand this interaction between God and fallen man? Can the unregenerate bring honor to God while not personally honoring him?
Like I said before, unregenerate man can do “good” things in the eyes of man and even say or teach truth as it pertains to the sciences or other topics found outside of Scripture. They can proclaim that one plus one equals two and that is ultimately the truth even from God’s perspective. The fact that unregenerate man is not as sinful as they can be or as stupid (believing things that are false) as they can be does not negate the fact that they know nothing about God and do not have a Biblically true world and life view. Ultimately the truth is not in them and they are without eyes to see or ears to hear. I think that common grace is in view when discussing the apparently good things that unbelievers do and the virtues that they may demonstrate. I would not say that God is impressed with the reprobate because he at times rightly observes God’s general revelation all the while suppressing the truth in unrighteousness and continuing in sin and wickedness. As we observe in Romans chapter one the heathen in all that he does is bringing about God’s wrath because of his sin as opposed to bringing about the glory of God.
I’m not talking about finding good in the reprobate according to man. I am addressing Calvin’s comments on dishonoring the Spirit of God by not recognizing the truth that comes from these “secular writers,” who I assume are unregenerate; that truth, because it is from the Spirit of God, seemingly brings honor to God in some way. I am in agreement with you Danny regarding Romans 1 and the similar passages you quoted above.
Calvin seems to be saying that unregenerate people can come to some truth as it relates to the sciences and it is only by God’s grace that they can do this to begin with. I am in agreement with him on this point because the mere fact that God allows any of us to partake of good and true things is due to God’s graciousness. I can recognize when a secular writer and unregenerate person communicates the truth for example: one plus one equals two. However, what I was saying is that I am not sure if I want to go so far as concluding that they are God honoring due to the fact that they know math or can postulate scientific experiments.
Ultimately, everything that happens in history is apart of God’s sovereign plan and hence nothing happens outside of his good and wise purposes and therefore God is glorified in everything that He does. I believe that there must be a difference in the way that we talk about God’s children (the elect) bringing Him glory as opposed to the wicked (the reprobate) knowing scientific or mathematical truth. God uses the reprobate (Pharaoh) to demonstrate His glory to His people however due to the deadness and depravity of the natural man I am very hesitant to say that the unregenerate person brings glory to God.
We must remember that God is fully glorified and complete in and of Himself and does not look to fallen or redeemed man to add to His glory. When we speak about Christians bringing glory to God we need to realize that the glory that we bring to God or the good things that we do is a direct result of God’s work in our lives. Believers can bring glory to God by serving Him and doing good works that were prepared beforehand by God (see Ephesians). Therefore, only glory that God gets from man is a direct result of His grace regenerating people to begin with. Christians can never say that we bring glory to God in and of ourselves because all we bring to the table is our sin. In other words if God left us to ourselves and did not intervene we would continue in sin and never be saved. Our sin as well as the unbelievers sin is not glorifying to God. We may say that evil is part of God’s sovereign plan without ever saying that evil brings Him glory. “You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good.” God is glorified in the good that came from the evil human intent and actions, however, the wicked acts and deceit of Joseph’s brothers was not God honoring or glorifying to Him.
God’s glory is therefore independent in one sense because He doesn’t need any more glory from outside of Himself. God is also glorified when He takes completely depraved and helpless sinners and saves them from their deserved punishment. Furthermore, God is also glorified when His justice is served by punishing the wicked; however, the wicked never bring God glory. I have yet to find in Scripture any glory given to God from the wicked for discovering scientific truth. We should never point to an unbeliever and say “wow you are bringing glory to God for this or that” because the Bible never does such a thing. In fact, the Bible only attributes wrath and judgment to the wicked and reserves God’s love and grace for the elect. God has chosen to save some people and those whom he has saved bring Him glory and the unbelieving one’s only merit His wrath and judgment.
Danny, you said: “When we speak about Christians bringing glory to God we need to realize that the glory that we bring to God or the good things that we do is a direct result of God’s work in our lives,” and “Christians can never say that we bring glory to God in and of ourselves because all we bring to the table is our sin.” And I agree with you completely. You also said: “I have yet to find in Scripture any glory given to God from the wicked for discovering scientific truth,” and I’m sure you won’t. And I’m also sure that God’s elect bring him honor and glory in a way that the reprobate were never created to do. All I’m saying is that there seem to be some things which are produced at the hands of the unregenerate which can be used to honor God, not that any kind of merit is attributed to them for this, but, as you said, it is a part of God’s providence. I’m only trying to point out that the Spirit of God moves within the unregenerate in such a way that, without them being aware of it, and with no credit to themselves, God brings about particular truths which can be used for his glory.
Paul quotes two Epicurean or Stoic philosophers in Acts 17:28 within his argument, which, by the way, he is making to the glory of God. In this situation, Paul is not acquitting these philosophers of the guilt they have rightfully inherited. However, he is using their words to communicate truths about God to his audience. I am not saying that because someone can do simple arithmetic that this brings glory to God because mathematical truths are no less truths than theological ones. I was just trying to make sense of Calvin’s comments regarding the Spirit of God as the sole fountain of truth, that’s all. I think that understanding God’s interaction with those considered to be reprobate helps to fully grasp his sovereignty, and process how it is the elect are to relate to those God has decided to pass over.
I know that we are mostly in agreement however I think that this discussion can be moved forward if you can suggest what exactly is in view when you say that “the Spirit of God moves within the unregenerate in such a way that, without them being aware of it, and with no credit to themselves, God brings about particular truths which can be used for his glory.”
Thanks for discussing this with me brother!
-Danny
Happy Birthday Michael!! The Big 3-0.
O Danny Boy!
So, let me try and clarify what it is I’m trying to say. In no way am I affirming that the Spirit of God indwells man as he does a Christian. May it never be! All I’m saying is that through God’s providence there are some truths spoken by the unregenerate which God can use to his honor and glory.
It has been nice discussing these things with you as well Danny!
Hello Fellas,
As I was reading through the Institutes’ section Michael had quoted earlier, I found some interesting things that might bring fuller context to our discussion. With respect to the creation of man, Calvin points out that God has given men both natural and supernatural gifts. He says, “And, indeed, that common opinion which they have taken from Augustine pleases me: that the natural gifts were corrupted in man through sin, but that his supernatural gifts were stripped from him (II.II.12).” Therefore, both Augustine and Calvin agree that God endowed man with supernatural and natural gifts at creation. What exactly are these gifts? Calvin maintains that the supernatural gifts are as follows: Faith, love for God, righteousness, charity towards neighbor, and zeal for holiness and for righteousness. All these supernatural gifts were lost at the fall, and no longer obtain in unregenerate men. However, the natural gifts were corrupted, but not lost. Those gifts include: reason, understanding, sense perception, and the will. All these things are part of the image of God in us, and are that which separate us from the brute beasts, as Danny and Calvin point out.
So, why am I getting into all this? First, Calvin maintains that these residual natural gifts are the basis for men having the capacity to do art or science. All men have an innate hunger for truth, according to Calvin. Calvin states, “For we see implanted in human nature some sort of desire to search out the truth to which man would not at all aspire if he had not already savored it (II.II.12 or p.271).” This is not to say men are seeking God or anything like that, but that man has a desire for truth. In fact, there would be nobody pursuing the sciences if this were not so. With this in mind, let us go back to the original discussion.
Calvin said, “Whenever we come upon these matters in secular writers, let that admirable light of truth shining in them teach us that the mind of man, though fallen and perverted from its wholeness, is nevertheless clothed and ornamented with God’s excellent gifts. If we regard the Spirit of God as the sole fountain of truth, we shall neither reject the truth itself, nor despise it whenever it shall appear, unless we wish to dishonor the Spirit of God” (273-4). God is the Author of all that is true, or to put it another way, the Spirit of God is the Spirit of truth. So, when we see scientists or philosophers stumbling around in the dark, and then, they stumble into a truth about God or creation (by God’s grace), they are “shinning forth truth” through their natural gifts of God in humanity. Not their truth, but God’s truth. They can do math or reason, because of the natural gifts they are endowed with (natural may be misleading, but the term refers to God given gifts that are common to all men. So, if we read Plato and come across the notion of the soul, we are not to reject the truth that man has a soul because we see it in a secular writer. That would dishonor the Spirit of truth, says Calvin. On the contrary, Paul was able to affirm the truth that secular writers stumble upon, as Michael has already pointed out.
The two of you have already pointed out the danger of how we apply God’s providence to this issue and some pitfalls, but we can all agree that unregenerate men do not seek to honor God, but God is glorified through his use of all people, especially the elect.