Calvin Pot Shots: Duck Duck Goose

It is always hilarious watching Calvinists squirm when the subject of double predestination comes up. But, Calvin had no qualms with barreling into it headlong.

 I say with Augustine, that the Lord has created those who, as he certainly foreknow, were to go to destruction, and he did so because he so willed (III.23.5)

Double Predestination is the tag that people have placed upon the belief that God not only chose the elect for salvation, but he also chose the reprobate for damnation. Obviously such a belief would give most people pause. We don't like to think of God playing duck duck goose with human lives and immortal souls. It didn't bother Calvin a bit. He even mocks the timidity in some not to embrace the obvious.

Another spot that makes Calvinists squirm is limited atonement. Limited Atonement is, in short, a view when Jesus died for sinners, he only died to pay for the sins of the chosen (elect). You see, the people that Jesus died for are all off the hook - Jesus took their punishment. If Jesus died for everybody, then everybody is off the hook and God wouldn't have anybody to torture for eternity. Well, we can't have that!

Some web theologians (mostly first semester seminarians), claim Calvin didn't even teach limited atonement. Institutes III.22 ought to cure that notion. Calvin certainly taught it, though he was not as explicit as with other controversial things that he wrote about. But, it is important to remember that you cannot have the Reformed view of election, unless you also maintain limited atonement.

So, I don't have as much of a problem with limiting the atonement as I do with the Calvin's view of predestined election. I understand there are serious issues with alternative theologies. Arminianism has problems, Lutheranism has problems, and  even the fancy new Open Theism has problems. I just don't want a God who chooses based on eeny, meeny, miny, moe.

All this comes down to a basic problem with Reformed theology (most theologies, in fact): the mechanism takes over. They start at a good spot - God's sovereignty. Then, they use God's sovereignty as a mechanism to read scripture. Well, that takes you to some inevitably weird places, like double predestination and limited atonement.

Notes on squirming: Not all Calvinists squirm. Some embrace double predestination. Most have the decency to squirm (see infralapsarianism).

End of Book II

God has predestined us to be finished with the second volume of Institutes on this very day.

There is no way that I am going to finish the two other volumes before Sunday. So, I think from now on, I will simply skim through the rest of this monstrosity and take pot shots at some of the more hilarious portions.

Book II Chapter 17

"Wow, I am so glad that you rescued me," you sat to your rescuer as your car sits in the background still ablaze. "It is a good thing that you happened to be driving by."

"There was no coincidence involved in my pulling you from that car," said the rescuer.

"What do you mean?"

"I followed you, waiting for you to drive off the road," the rescuer responds, smiling. "I saw the fence post you hit. I knew it would puncture your gas tank."

"Wow," you say in amazement. "I feel so honored. What did I ever do to deserve your attention?"

The rescuer's smile disappears. "You did nothing. You are completely undeserving. It was you who was texting. This accident was your fault. I did not rescue you because you deserved it."

"Then," you scratch your head, thinking. "Why did you rescue me? I don't get it."

"I rescued you because it was my plan all along." The rescuer is smiling once again. "You have now seen my mercy and grace! Look at my hands, my wounds!"

The rescuer lifts up his hands so that you can see them. They are burnt and still smoking. You have to look away in disgust. The rescuer, however, has no such qualms. He stares at his smoldering hands with a look of wonder and says, "Now you see it is me that has the superior merit and not you."

The rescuer gets up and walks away, and you are somehow glad to see him go.

Book II Chapter 16

So, God is in charge of everything. Salvation was initiated by God based on his mercy and for his own glory. Or whatever. But, while we were still in sin, God hated us. Which is it? Did God hate us or love us?

Calvin comes up with a weird answer to this: both. God hated us while we were sinners, but he loved us enough to initiate a redemptive work. Calvin echoes his main man Augustine: 'he both hated us and loved us at the same time' (II.16.4). To me, this is clear proof that God is a teenage girl.

But, it is most important, says Calvin, to understand God's actions through the lens if Jesus Christ, whose redemptive work defines the whole of the issue.

Calvin then tackles a few issues that have always bothered me. Remember, he is following the Apostle's Creed as a structure for Institutes. He takes a few moments to comment on some specific portions of the Creed.

1. Why does the Creed skip from the virgin birth of Jesus to his suffering under Pontius Pilate? What happened to everything in the middle? Calvin defends the Creed by saying that the Creed emphasized Christ's obedience and redemptive work. Which, should be a model for us.

That's dumb. The Creed makes no mention of the ethical teachings of Jesus - the great majority of the Gospels. Can you imagine telling Mark, Matthew, John or Luke that the parables, sermons and teachings of Jesus are of secondary importance to his redemptive work?

2. Christ descended into Hell. I have to confess, when I am in Church, I go mum at this point in the Creed. I have no idea why it is in there. Apparently, in Calvin's day, there was an effort made to nix it from the Creed. So, obviously, I am not the only one that finds it to be baseless.

Calvin, defends it, however, on the basis that it is both a way of confirming our belief in his death and his suffering. It is important that we remember that he actually did die a real death, and he really suffered, so that we do not have to suffer and so that we might be delivered from death. So, Calvin says leave it in.

OK. Fine. But, I still have the same issue. Why is this more important than Matthew 22:38-39? The Creed is supposed to represent the foundational elements of our faith. Why is Christ going to Hell (an extra-Biblical assumption, btw) more important than loving your neighbor?

3. Ascension. Calvin defends the fact that the Creed lists Christ's Ascension into Heaven  as a foundational portion of our faith using the same basic method as he did with the previous issues. I'll, then ask the same question. How is this more important than the actual important stuff?

Book II Chapters 13-15

Chapters 13-17 deal generally with Christology. I am not going to make it through the Institutes, so I have to speed up. The things Calvin discusses are very important, but I am speeding up for two reasons:

• I can't find much to make fun of in this section
• I can't find a whole lot to disagree with in this section

And what fun is that? But, it seems wrong to read a Christian theology book and skip all the Jesus stuff, doesn't it? 

First, a general observation. Some theological works are almost beautiful in the way they puzzle out some of the tricky questions of belief and orthodoxy. I think of Karl Barth, especially. Others, however, are more inclined to skip all the crap and say it like it is. Calvin is definitely among the latter. Calvin does not even attempt to use the intricate, nuanced craftmanship of his predecessors or those who came after him. Some theologians just prefer to see their pen as a sledgehammer, I guess. 

Calvin the Ghostbuster

As usual, Calvin rails against heretics and heresies throughout this section. He starts by blasting the Manichaens and Marcionites. I'll refer to them generally as Gnostics, even though the Marcionites were not technically Gnostic. 

Gnosticism had big problems with Christ's humanity. They tended to glorify the 'spirit' as the ultimate reality. The spirit is where God dwells and acts. The spirit is where we should direct our lives and goals. We should all be trying to get rid of this nasty flesh stuff that just gets in the way. So, portraying Jesus as fully spirit and fully human (with all the nasty fleshy stuff) was reprehensible to Christian Gnostics. Some of them saw Christ as some sort of fairy that only appeared human. Others, thought of Jesus as a ghost - someone that seemed corporeal but was actually a spirit. 

Calvin couldn't stand any of that crap. He pounds away at the gnostic notions with the weight of scripture and logic in an effective refutation. Amidst his logic is his old refrain that Jesus had to be human, to be a redeemer, which was his primary purpose. 

Jesus: Blood donor

But, Calvin reminds us, don't get the timeline mixed up. God the Son's existence was eternal in time past. He did not suddenly start existing when he emerged from the womb. He did not begin to exist when he was conceived by the Holy Ghost. 

It is vital to distinguish that the one Christ has two natures. The divine and the human remained distinct from one another. He was one person with two natures. Calvin plays amateur anthropologist again and obsesses for a bit on a subject where he is clearly in error: the constitution of humans. Not only did Christ have two natures, we all do. However, his natures interacted differently than ours. 

Things got weird here. Calvin writes about how different aspects of each of the natures are offered to one another so that he might act as mediator. So, when it was time for the human to do extraordinary things, the human part borrowed power from the divine. When it was time for God to die, the divine part borrowed some blood. Because, how could you die with out bleeding all over the place?

Obviously, Calvin was trying to counter the Gnostic argument that God could not be sullied by human nastiness (like blood), but come on. This gets a little ridiculous. 

Calvin blasts away for a while at Servetus, but I won't even bother going over that. 

Prophetic, Regal and Sacerdotal

I actually really enjoyed chapter 15. The Mediator maintains a  threefold office: prophet, priest, and king. 

As a prophet, he has not only fulfilled all past prophecy, but he has also ended all future prophecy. For Calvin, prophecy was always Christocentric, so now that he is the anointed messiah, why do we need prophecy anymore? Calvin doesn't explicitly say it, but the end of prophecy now creates a dynamic where the logos is the one source of special revelation. Very cool. 

As a priest, Christ cares for the church and is a living sacrifice for their continual struggles with their own depravity. 

As a King, Jesus acts as head of the church. His role is a preserver and equipper of the Church. Calvin says that eternity is not here yet, but King Jesus gives us everything we need to enjoy the blessings of eternity. There is no reason to wait for the Kingdom (future sense), when the King sits upon the throne right now. Yes! Exactly.

So, props to Calvin. He nailed the threefold office and showed the wacko Gnostics how to do real theology.  

Book II Chapter 12

Why did Jesus become a human being?

There was this German dude named Osiander. Osiander thought that God's eternal plan was to be united with humanity. For Osiander, salvation comes from unity with God, not necessarily from Christ's redemption. Christ's redemptive work was intended to clear a path for dwelling with (or indwelling) humanity. So, Jesus would have taken on flesh and blood whether Adam sinned or not.

At this point, Calvin spits out his beer in a frothy fury. NO! The only reason Jesus became a human was the work of redemption. Of course, at this point, Calvin has to deal with the awkward subject of predestination, which he does not get into fully, nor shall we.

I do want to deal with one thing, here. Calvin drops this little gem:

the only end that the Scripture uniformly assigns for the Son of God voluntarily assuming our nature, and even receiving it as a command from the Father, is that He might propitiate the Father to us by becoming a victim (II.12.4)

So, the only reason Jesus came was to die and thus rescue sinners? It is fairly obvious that such a perspective represents only a part of the Gospel. Is it an important part? Of course. Is it the most important part? Perhaps. But, I don't know how Calvin can say that the 'only end' of assuming our nature is propitiation.

Calvin also rejects Osiander's theology of the image of God. Osiander took the imago dei in man very seriously. The imago dei is Jesus Christ, to Osiander, and God is trying to reinfuse that image into humanity by uniting with humanity (Incarnation). Calvin thinks this is bogus. He says the imago dei only refers to certain ethical and moral abilities.

All I learned from this chapter is that I need to look into this Osiander guy some more. He sounds cool.

Book II Chapter 11

So, Calvin goes to great pains to show that both the Old and New Testaments are actually part of one overarching Gospel. To Calvin, the Bible is flat. I doubt Calvinists would appreciate the characterization, but I think it is accurate. The Old Testament is just as authoritative as the New. It is all inspired revelation.

He wrote the previous chapter primarily to combat the rival perspectives of Servetus, and a cartoonized version of Anabaptist theology. He moves from the unity of Scripture to a consideration of the differences between the Old and the New. There are obviously differences or what he calls 'contrasts.' So, do we go with the Anabaptists and just see the NT as trump?

Calvin points out areas of contrast, but explains that the differences are only differences in 'administration,' not a difference of substance. In other words, scripture is still flat, we just have to go through a few intellectual/theological tricks to see it as such.

I readily object to this flat Bible concept, and have to echo the Anabaptists. For a good explanation of this, see Greg Boyd's post. To get to the meat of the issue: Jesus himself claimed that Scripture was not flat. Some teachings are interpretive of others, and thus authoritative. Whenever two passages conflict, then we must go with the authoritative text. So, when Jesus says eye for an eye is no longer applicable, reading Deuteronomy 25 must be revised thus. Simple. It makes sense. Calvin hated it.

Book II Chapter 10

I think in Chapter 10, Calvin saw himself as some sort of caped super hero theologian, vanquishing uber-villains, and saving commoners from Hell.

I just imagined John Calvin in superhero tights and about lost my breakfast.

He starts out with a bunch of name calling. The reason for having to write this chapter he blames on villains:

• 'that monstrous miscreant, Servetus' 
• and those Anabaptist 'madmen' 

What did they do to serve the nasty names?  They had promulgated a 'pestilential error': they denied that the Bible is flat. They considered the New Testament and the Old testament as different. Or, in Calvin's words: 'think[ing] of the people of Israel just as they would do of some herd of swine.

Morons.

How could they not see that both the Old and New Testament are actually one Promise? Calvin gives reasons why both testaments are the same. WARNING: HUGE THEOLOGICAL STRETCHES FOLLOW

• Both Testaments are the same promise because both promise immortality. 

First, Calvin says that this is a useless exercise for Anabaptists since they reject all things OT. Which is a ridiculous pot shot, since that is not what Anabaptists believe nor have they ever believed it. 

He gives some fairly exhaustive 'proofs,' some of which are hilarious. I won't put you through a recitation, even for the purposes of refutation. Our purpose here is to make fun of Calvin, not refute him. I will say only two things. Immortality may be a part of the meta-narrative of the Gospel, but there is no way the patriarchs knew that. There is just no way. Second, many of Calvin's 'proofs' (especially in the Torah), the characters were pretty clearly speaking about blessing being passed to their progeny, not personal life after death. 

• Both Testaments are the same promise because both are founded on the mercy of God in Christ. 

Ok. I see what he was trying to do here, and I would generally agree with it. He is saying there is a gospel narrative that stretches across both covenants, but he insists on proof-texting. 

• Both Testaments are the same promise because both contain the sacraments.

Are you kidding me? He claims that the sacraments are found in the the Old Testament since passing through the Red Sea was a type of baptism, eating manna in the wilderness was a type of Eucharistic host. So, when ignorant aboriginal people find crumbs in the jungle and/or take a swim in a lake, should we declare them part of the inheritance?

What a stupid chapter. Let's see how a real theological superhero does it.

Book II Chapter 9

It is not proper, says Calvin, to seperate the 'Law' and 'Gospel' too stringently. 'Gospel' encompasses all the ways that God reconciles people. This does not exclude the Law, it involves the Law. Of course, the Old Testament patriarchs may not have been aware of the role they played in the Gospel, but they were aware that they were part of a divine eternal plan to rescue people.

But, watch out for 'the diabolical imagination' of Servetus! Servetus would lead us to believe that we have already 'passed from death unto life' (I John 3:14), and that the promises of God have already been fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Calvin thinks this is nonsense. How can we have the fulfillment of Christ's promises when we still struggle with our 'mortal flesh'? Sure, there is plenty in the NT about how all things have been fulfilled in Christ, but this represents a promise, says Calvin, that has effects on our present reality.

Once again, it sounds like God has given us enough grace to condemn us, but not enough to actually improve our situation(s). How kind.

Book II Chapter 8

Ugh. I had to read this crap. That was enough. No way I am going to write about it.

The Ten Commandments were basically the subject. I assume that you have heard of them. More broadly put, Calvin is explaining how the Moral law works (see ch. 7) in detail.

He splits the Decalogue into two sections. The first four commandments pertain to how we approach God. The next six deal with human interactions. You may not have known this before, but you are about to learn it now. Most of the Commandments were written by God to show just how Catholics and Anabaptists are doing it wrong.

So, there you go.

Book II Chapter 7

Calvin was a big fan of the Law (Torah, etc.). Some people (I'm glaring at you Antinomians) thought the Law was made useless by the work of Jesus Christ. Calvin rejects this strongly. He thought that the Law has several integral uses still.

But, wait. Didn't Paul, and even Jesus himself, teach that the Law was set aside? Yes, Calvin says, but we have to ask what about it was set aside? To Calvin (and many others), the effect of the Law was set aside, not the authority of the Law. 

Calvin goes to great lengths to show the nuance within the concept of the Law. To him, there are three 'laws' within the Law:

• Ceremonial
• Moral
• Civic

This comes straight from Aquinas. Sometimes, when we say the 'Law' we actually mean something within the Law. When Jesus or Paul spoke of setting aside the Law, were they referring to the effects or the authority? Were they referring to the ceremonial, moral, or civic laws? 

Much of the ceremonial law is kaput, says Calvin, since it was only there to point to Christ's sacrifice in the first place. I love the following quote:

For what is more vain or absurd than for men to offer a loathsome stench from the fat of cattle in order to reconcile themselves to God? Or to have recourse to the sprinkling of water and blood to cleanse away their filth? In short, the whole cultus of the law, taken literally and not as shadows and figures corresponding to the truth, will be utterly ridiculous.

Yeah, rip it, Johnny! However, I am not sure that the Patriarchs would have been all that happy to hear that God was using them as a giant metaphor. Oh well. Joke's on them. 

The Moral Law is very useful. It testifies to the hope we have in Christ; Reveals God's righteousness; Restrains the Reprobate; Keeps the Elect humble and on the straight and narrow. We're all still damaged goods and we're still naturally sinful. So, we need the Law to keep us from blowing it. 

Finally, the Law offers civic guidance. Modern societies can use the Law as a guide for establishing moral standards in their community. But, be sure not to get the ceremonial law mixed up with the civic and vice versa. Or else, you might make pork illegal while allowing murder. Or something like that. 

I think it is interesting that Calvin was so concerned about differentiating laws. When, he would send people to jail for three days because they were caught DANCING! 

This is some fancy theology, to be sure. But, I am not sure Jesus or Paul were aware of it. I am sure that Moses was not aware of it. I have a problem with any theology that necessitates so much more inspiration for the interpreter than the original writer. 

You licentious sinners should all go to jail!

Book II Chapter 6

Only Calvin could take John 17:3 and turn it into an exclusionary passage. According to Calvin's Christ, Heaven is like a swanky night club. You would not want to let just anybody in there. Next thing you know, the unwanted rabble would be running the show. God forbid!

I don't really want to get too deep into this issue. People will start sending me angry messages accusing me of Universalism. Or, even worse, they would send me nice messages telling me that they are praying for me. So, I'll just say one thing.

I don't have a problem with an exclusive Gospel. I do, however, have a problem with any Gospel that excludes.

Book II Chapter 5

For this section, I decided to just dialog with Mr. Calvin directly. An odious task, for sure.

ME: Mr. Calvin, if our actions do not emanate from our own will, then what right does God have to punish those actions?

CALVIN: The source is irrelevant. The act is what is justly punished. You sinned, you get punished.

ME: If we have no free will, then how could people ever reject God?

CALVIN: Hasn't it ever occurred to you that God was the one who made that choice for you?

ME: You mean, like, God caused me to reject his grace?

CALVIN: He is supremely sovereign, even over the hearts of men. But, to be clear, we would all have rejected him had he not chosen some of us. We are all too depraved to ever choose him.

ME: If we have no liberty of the will, then why does God spend so much effort trying to convince people to change?

CALVIN: Those corrections in behavior are only for the elect, whom God has given the ability to change their lives. For the damned, the law of God serves as evidence of their depravity.

ME: It doesn't seem fair that God holds people responsible for things that people aren't even capable of doing.

CALVIN: None of us are capable of doing anything good. God never tailored the law to our ability. Rather it is a display of his righteousness.

ME: I don't think that is an answer. 

CALVIN: Oh, but it is!

ME: Ok, whatever. God seems to say in several passages that we can control our own wills and that we should. Hasn't God transferred some responsibility to us?

CALVIN: No. If we do any good, it is done according to the Spirit

ME: Doesn't scripture that if we turn to God then he will turn to us?

CALVIN: That is perversion of the passage. That passage was not describing salvation, but the repentance of Israel.

ME: There are times in scripture where God removes his presence from people to see what they will do without him. If, they were capable of making a choice in that setting without him, doesn't that imply a free will. 

CALVIN: That is an erroneous interpretation. God did not leave, he actually hid and maintained control. (Institutes II.5.13)

ME: Wow. Um... okay.

Book II Chapter 4

Calvin has gone to great pains in the previous chapters to convince us that we are vile creatures. He has argued that we sin voluntarily and necessarily. But, God's sovereignty extends over everything - the devil and the actions of wicked men. So, how does God interact within such a cesspool? Does God author evil things?

Calvin says it is very 'easy' to describe God's sovereignty even in the context of Satanic evil. Calvin's formula is to examine what the intended end was, and then look at the means of execution of any particular action.

Take God's servant Job, for example. God allowed that poor sucker to get destroyed in various and terrible means. The intention of this was to 'exercise the patience' of Job via 'adversity'. He allowed the devil to do his worse and he allowed the Chaldeans to run amok through Job's life. Satan wanted to destroy Job. The Chaldeans wanted  to take job's stuff. So, we cannot ascribe to God the evil that was instigated by evil beings. They did it as an act of their own will, even though God was ultimately in charge.

Calvin says that he does not suffer from the squeamishness that Augustine and other predecessors suffered from. They hesitated to describe God in such away. But, not Calvin. He barrels right into it, and says it like it is. God is completely sovereign. Everything falls into his purview, even wickedness.

But, Calvin denies that God is responsible for any of the damage done or evil wrought. God only allowed evil creatures to do what they wanted to. His hands are clean.

What a bunch of bullshit. That is like going to a puppet show with your kids and the puppeteer keeps cussing and swearing.

"Hey!" you yell to the puppeteer. "Lay off the swears, pal!"

"It wasn't me," he responds. "It was theses potty mouthed puppets."

You don't buy it, of course. "Well, aren't you controlling them? Aren't you making their voices and causing their actions?"

"Yes, of course," answers the puppet master, "but they are very evil, you see, and there are times that I allow them to exercise their evil for the greater good!"

"What good is cussing in front of kids?"

The puppeteer looks at you like you asked an obviously silly question. "Well, that is how you can admire my masterful skills!"

Book II Chapter 3

Calvin really wants you to know one thing about yourself: you suck. I mean, royally. You are trash from the outside in - from your hair follicles down to your very will. Because of this, you could not accomplish a lick of good even if you wanted to. Of course, you don't want to, because your will is infected with the filth of sinful corruption. 

Pelagians don't appreciate such talk, of course. The Pelagians thought that God's redemptive work actually worked within us to change the corruption within those lucky enough to be a part of elect. So, we get better and more capable. Calvin spends a good amount of time eviscerating their arguments. Calvin sees the flesh - even at its most cowed - as incurable taint (*chuckle* *snicker* *derp*). Our will is continually corrupt by virtue of being human. 

Good comes from God and never from fallen man. So, when good is accomplished by human means, it is only because God has instilled the will and the ability within that human agent. There is no liberated human - no free agent. True liberty is to be enslaved to the will of God.

Liberty vs. Sovereignty is a fascinating philosophical discussion that is seemingly only important to first semester seminarians. By the time they finish the second semester, they usually find themselves in two groups. The first are convinced of the useless and vain silliness of the debate, and will inevitably become great pastors or thoughtful theologians. The other group are completely convinced of their own perspective on the issue and well on their way to a horrible life of youth ministry. 

For those petty theologians in youth ministry, Lord, we pray. 

Youth Minister - totally solved the Liberty vs. Sovereignty debate in 1 semester. Nailed it.

Book II Chapter 2

Calvin says that nobody has free will. It does not exist. We are all enslaved to sin and lust and nastiness and we are incapable of doing anything good. It may seem like we are making our own choices, but it is just an illusion caused by our corrupted souls.

But, sometimes people do good and godly things, don't they? Of course they do, but this is not of their own volition, rather God works the goodness into their will, so it is not really their will at all. God caused it to happen, because of his grace and mercy!

There is a personal spiritual aspect to all this since we cannot claim any part in anything that is good. So, Calvin maintains that we are thus humbled by our depravity. The more we contemplate our pitiful state, the less likely we are to claim credit for something God did. Thus, we can have a right relationship with God: humble and appreciative.

I have a problem with such a stance. 'Humble and appreciative sounds' a lot like 'humiliated and shamed.' Psychologists teach not to put up with such relationships. Humiliation and shame are almost always poor motivation for healthy behavior. Why is God acting like an abusive father. Instead, what if we are so scandalized by the immensity of God's grace that we change our perspectives, our lives, and our actions? Wouldn't that be better?

Calvin makes an important distinction, however, about whom regenerative grace is given - only the elect. He is scandalized by the 'fanatics' that would have God 'promiscuously and equally' distribute grace to all people. How horrible! Can you imagine how crazy God would have to be just to let anybody off the hook, instead of picking and choosing random people? How could these crazy 'fanatics' believe such nonsense?

• "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:3-4).
• "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (2 Pet. 3:9
• Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. (Rom 5:18)).
•  And I, when I am lifted up^[g] from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” (John 12:32)
• But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. (Heb. 2:9)

etc. etc. 

What Calvin Thinks About Lent

Superstitious
Meaningless
UnBiblical
and
Pagan

Read it yourself - http://heidelblog.net/2013/02/calvin-on-lent/

All of a sudden, I LOVE Lent!

Book II Chapter 1

Patterned after the Apostle's Creed, Calvin moves from our knowledge of God to our knowledge of human beings. So, what do we know about human beings?

We're sinful. Why are we sinful? Because Adam blew it, of course. But, what was the nature of Adam's sin? Augustine thought that pride is at the root of all sin. Calvin agrees, but adds to it. He says that pride and disobedience is at the root of all sin. Not only did man's ambition get him into trouble, but acting counter to God's revealed will (word) got Adam into hot water.

Of course, any self-respecting Christian realizes that Adam's original sin was passed down by 'hereditary corruption.'

Hey! Wait a minute! Why should I pay for something Adam did? That is not fair. 

You sound like that rat bastard Pelagius, Calvin says (BOOO! HISSS!).

Pelagius thought that original sin was, in fact, not passed down via hereditary corruption. Instead, we are all culpable for our own sin and get ourselves into our own hot water. Pelagius was, of course wrong.

According to Calvin, Pelagius was wrong for two reasons: 1) Because he was friggin Pelagius, and thus incapable of being right. 2) Because of the testimony of scripture. To this day, Calvinist still use the same argument structure.

So, we could safely walk away from the subject, but here come the sniveling Pelagians return with their complaints: What about cute little children? Are children depraved and corrupt? Do children pop out of the womb on the fast track to Hell?

Calvin answers in true pastoral style: Of course, they are going to Hell! They are descendants of Adam aren't they? 'Guilt is from nature, whereas sanctification is from supernatural grace.'

This is hard for people to believe and a lot of us may be willing to agree with the Pelagians. But, I would argue that you have never met my children, who did, indeed, emanate from the womb as wretched, sinful, and horrible.

Ok, let's wrap it up with one last thing. Man's sinful state is universal in culpability - everybody is corrupted by sin. It is also overwhelming in particular - it corrupts every part of an individual.

Have a nice day, wretch.