Calvin’s Institutes: God’s Repentance

[LaGrange]

Hi Everyone,

Please see my comment after Calvin’s quote. Thanks!

Calvin - Institutes
Providence - God’s Repentance - Examples

1,17,14 (book, chapter, section)

Jon 3:10 (D-R) And God saw their works, that they were turned from their evil way: and God had mercy with regard to the evil which he had said that he would do to them, and he did it not.
Jon 3:10 (KJV) And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.
Is 38:5 (D-R) Go and say to Ezechias: Thus saith the Lord the God of David thy father: I have heard thy prayer, and I have seen thy tears: behold I will add to thy days fifteen years:

Calvin: The sacred history does not show that God’s decrees were abrogated when it relates that the destruction which had once been pronounced upon the Ninevites was remitted [Jonah 3:10]; and that Hezekiah’s life, after his death had been intimated, had been prolonged [Isa. 38:5].16 Those who think so are deceived in these intimations (Signs). Even though the latter make a simple affirmation, it is to be understood from the outcome that these nonetheless contain a tacit (Implied or understood) condition. For why did the Lord send Jonah to the Ninevites to foretell the ruin of the city? Why did he through Isaiah indicate death to Hezekiah? For he could have destroyed both the Ninevites and Hezekiah without any messenger of destruction. Therefore he had in view something other than that, forewarned of their death, they might discern it coming from a distance. Indeed, he did not wish them to perish, but to be changed lest they perish. Therefore Jonah’s prophecy that after forty days Nineveh would be destroyed was made so it might not fall......Who now does not see that it pleased the Lord by such threats to arouse to repentance those whom he was terrifying, that they might escape the judgment they deserved for their sins? If that is true, the nature of the circumstances leads us to recognize a tacit (Implied or understood) condition in the simple intimation (Notification).

My Comment: I have my interpretation but I would like to see yours first. This chapter is under Providence and this section has to do with God’s Repentance. Calvin is giving examples of God’s Repentance and in this particular example he is using one of Prophecy. I did not quote every word of this section but only the parts that were the most important to me. You will see dots between the parts I quoted. I just want to make sure I’m interpretating this right. Any help you can give would be greatly appreciated!

 

[LaGrange]

Hi Everyone,

Please see my comment after Calvin’s quote. Thanks!

Calvin - Institutes
Providence - God’s Repentance - Examples

1,17,14 (book, chapter, section)

Jon 3:10 (D-R) And God saw their works, that they were turned from their evil way: and God had mercy with regard to the evil which he had said that he would do to them, and he did it not.
Jon 3:10 (KJV) And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.
Is 38:5 (D-R) Go and say to Ezechias: Thus saith the Lord the God of David thy father: I have heard thy prayer, and I have seen thy tears: behold I will add to thy days fifteen years:

Calvin: The sacred history does not show that God’s decrees were abrogated when it relates that the destruction which had once been pronounced upon the Ninevites was remitted [Jonah 3:10]; and that Hezekiah’s life, after his death had been intimated, had been prolonged [Isa. 38:5].16 Those who think so are deceived in these intimations (Signs). Even though the latter make a simple affirmation, it is to be understood from the outcome that these nonetheless contain a tacit (Implied or understood) condition. For why did the Lord send Jonah to the Ninevites to foretell the ruin of the city? Why did he through Isaiah indicate death to Hezekiah? For he could have destroyed both the Ninevites and Hezekiah without any messenger of destruction. Therefore he had in view something other than that, forewarned of their death, they might discern it coming from a distance. Indeed, he did not wish them to perish, but to be changed lest they perish. Therefore Jonah’s prophecy that after forty days Nineveh would be destroyed was made so it might not fall......Who now does not see that it pleased the Lord by such threats to arouse to repentance those whom he was terrifying, that they might escape the judgment they deserved for their sins? If that is true, the nature of the circumstances leads us to recognize a tacit (Implied or understood) condition in the simple intimation (Notification).

My Comment: I have my interpretation but I would like to see yours first. This chapter is under Providence and this section has to do with God’s Repentance. Calvin is giving examples of God’s Repentance and in this particular example he is using one of Prophecy. I did not quote every word of this section but only the parts that were the most important to me. You will see dots between the parts I quoted. I just want to make sure I’m interpretating this right. Any help you can give would be greatly appreciated!

Hi Everyone,
I thought I would go ahead and give my interpretation. It is incomplete but here’s my thoughts:

My Comment: Calvin believes man’s Natural Free Will, by definition, either cannot receive grace or it receives grace but moves the Will by “Compulsion”. Either way, it seems the Will is not “Free” by definition. The Thomistic View is that “Free” means not only the ability (Power) to say yes but also maintains the ability to say no - the ability to make a true choice. I think Calvin believes, when God sends a prophet to warn someone, God scares them by using man’s Free Will (with grace in it by Compulsion = pulls the Will ) to accomplish things. By “Tacit Condition” it seems Calvin means God is Decreeing within the Prophecy so that, when God speaks through the prophecy, He is stating what is going to happen. This is what I’m not sure of. He probably thinks this because the prophecy doesn’t use the word “If” in it so it doesn’t sound like a Contingency. Calvin’s basis for all of this seems to be that he believes that if God has Foreknowledge of something then it must happen by Necessity.

To contrast this, Aquinas says Foreknowledge is a type of Prophecy (STh., II-II q.174 a.1). First, Aquinas says: “The order of divine providence is unchangeable and certain, so far as all things foreseen happen as they have been foreseen, whether from necessity or from contingency” (STh., I q.22 a.4 ad 2). This means God’s Foreknowledge includes Contingencies. In another place Aquinas goes on to say the Prophecy of Foreknowledge is Contingent in Cause and Effect. This means, for example, when God, through Jonah, warns the Ninivites about the destruction of Nineveh, God’s Will is unchangeable. It is unchangeable in this way: If the Ninivites don’t pray and repent, the city will be destroyed. The opposite is unchangeable as well: If the Ninivites do pray and repent, the city will be spared. In both cases God’s Will is unchangeable. As Aquinas says it: “ God’s Sentence changes but not His Counsel.” (STh., II-II q.171 a.6 ad 2)

I provide a little of Aquinas’ View of Prophecy below for food for thought.
Here’s Aquinas’ breakdown:

STh., II-II q.174 a.1

Prophecy is in the Divine Knowledge in 2 ways:

1. God Foretells Cause and Effect:
a. Prophecy of Denunciation (Public Condemnation) - not always fulfilled - Foretells Cause and Effect (Denunciation includes God’s Promises) (ex: Jonah 3:4,10; Is 38:1,5; Jer 18:7-8 b. Promises - Jer 18:9-10)
*God changes His Sentence but not His Counsel” (STh., II-II q.171 a.6)
(Counsel = Wisdom, Foresight)

2. God Foreknows certain things in themselves:
a. Prophecy of Predestination - Things accomplished only by God Himself - regards Good only (ex: Matt 1:23, Is 7:14)
b. Prophecy of Foreknowledge - God accomplishes through man’s Free Will - regards Good or Evil (ex: many - any Contingency that’s not Denunciation or Promise)

(

 

[Yeshua1]

Hi Everyone,
I thought I would go ahead and give my interpretation. It is incomplete but here’s my thoughts:

My Comment: Calvin believes man’s Natural Free Will, by definition, either cannot receive grace or it receives grace but moves the Will by “Compulsion”. Either way, it seems the Will is not “Free” by definition. The Thomistic View is that “Free” means not only the ability (Power) to say yes but also maintains the ability to say no - the ability to make a true choice. I think Calvin believes, when God sends a prophet to warn someone, God scares them by using man’s Free Will (with grace in it by Compulsion = pulls the Will ) to accomplish things. By “Tacit Condition” it seems Calvin means God is Decreeing within the Prophecy so that, when God speaks through the prophecy, He is stating what is going to happen. This is what I’m not sure of. He probably thinks this because the prophecy doesn’t use the word “If” in it so it doesn’t sound like a Contingency. Calvin’s basis for all of this seems to be that he believes that if God has Foreknowledge of something then it must happen by Necessity.

To contrast this, Aquinas says Foreknowledge is a type of Prophecy (STh., II-II q.174 a.1). First, Aquinas says: “The order of divine providence is unchangeable and certain, so far as all things foreseen happen as they have been foreseen, whether from necessity or from contingency” (STh., I q.22 a.4 ad 2). This means God’s Foreknowledge includes Contingencies. In another place Aquinas goes on to say the Prophecy of Foreknowledge is Contingent in Cause and Effect. This means, for example, when God, through Jonah, warns the Ninivites about the destruction of Nineveh, God’s Will is unchangeable. It is unchangeable in this way: If the Ninivites don’t pray and repent, the city will be destroyed. The opposite is unchangeable as well: If the Ninivites do pray and repent, the city will be spared. In both cases God’s Will is unchangeable. As Aquinas says it: “ God’s Sentence changes but not His Counsel.” (STh., II-II q.171 a.6 ad 2)

I provide a little of Aquinas’ View of Prophecy below for food for thought.
Here’s Aquinas’ breakdown:

STh., II-II q.174 a.1

Prophecy is in the Divine Knowledge in 2 ways:

1. God Foretells Cause and Effect:
a. Prophecy of Denunciation (Public Condemnation) - not always fulfilled - Foretells Cause and Effect (Denunciation includes God’s Promises) (ex: Jonah 3:4,10; Is 38:1,5; Jer 18:7-8 b. Promises - Jer 18:9-10)
*God changes His Sentence but not His Counsel” (STh., II-II q.171 a.6)
(Counsel = Wisdom, Foresight)

2. God Foreknows certain things in themselves:
a. Prophecy of Predestination - Things accomplished only by God Himself - regards Good only (ex: Matt 1:23, Is 7:14)
b. Prophecy of Foreknowledge - God accomplishes through man’s Free Will - regards Good or Evil (ex: many - any Contingency that’s not Denunciation or Promise)

(

God is not changing His mind, as His plans were accomplished just as intended!

 

[LaGrange]

God is not changing His mind, as His plans were accomplished just as intended!

I agree. God’s Will covers all contingencies.

 

[LaGrange]

God is not changing His mind, as His plans were accomplished just as intended!

Hi Yeshua1,

I think I found the answer. Here’s what Berkof says under his section on the Immutability of God:

“In reality the change is not in God, but in man and in man’s relations to God. It is important to maintain the immutability of God over against the Pelagian and Arminian doctrine that God is subject to change, not indeed in His Being, but in His knowledge and will, so that His decisions are to a great extent dependent on the actions of man...” (P59)

I thin when Aquinas says God changes His Sentence but not His Counsel says the same thing.

 

[Yeshua1]

Hi Yeshua1,

I think I found the answer. Here’s what Berkof says under his section on the Immutability of God:

“In reality the change is not in God, but in man and in man’s relations to God. It is important to maintain the immutability of God over against the Pelagian and Arminian doctrine that God is subject to change, not indeed in His Being, but in His knowledge and will, so that His decisions are to a great extent dependent on the actions of man...” (P59)

I thin when Aquinas says God changes His Sentence but not His Counsel says the same thing.

God already knew and accounted for the response of the Ninevites, as he sent the message thru the Prophet to accomplish his will.

 

[Yeshua1]

Hi Yeshua1,

I think I found the answer. Here’s what Berkof says under his section on the Immutability of God:

“In reality the change is not in God, but in man and in man’s relations to God. It is important to maintain the immutability of God over against the Pelagian and Arminian doctrine that God is subject to change, not indeed in His Being, but in His knowledge and will, so that His decisions are to a great extent dependent on the actions of man...” (P59)

I thin when Aquinas says God changes His Sentence but not His Counsel says the same thing.

Now the 64000 question is how does God and our prayers interact?

 

[Scott Downey]

Now the 64000 question is how does God and our prayers interact?

Luke 18
1 Then He spoke a parable to them, that men always ought to pray and not lose heart, 2 saying: “There was in a certain city a judge who did not fear God nor regard man. 3 Now there was a widow in that city; and she came to him, saying, ‘Get justice for me from my adversary.’ 4 And he would not for a while; but afterward he said within himself, ‘Though I do not fear God nor regard man, 5 yet because this widow troubles me I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.’ ”

6 Then the Lord said, “Hear what the unjust judge said. 7 And shall God not avenge His own elect who cry out day and night to Him, though He bears long with them? 8 I tell you that He will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth?”

We dont need to know exactly how God will avenge His elect, just that He will. Our specific prayers, God will answer His way.

Revelation 5:8
Worthy Is the Lamb
Now when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

Revelation 8:3
Then another angel, having a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne.

Revelation 8:4
And the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the saints, ascended before God from the angel’s hand.

 

[Scott Downey]

Hi Everyone,

Please see my comment after Calvin’s quote. Thanks!

Calvin - Institutes
Providence - God’s Repentance - Examples

1,17,14 (book, chapter, section)

Jon 3:10 (D-R) And God saw their works, that they were turned from their evil way: and God had mercy with regard to the evil which he had said that he would do to them, and he did it not.
Jon 3:10 (KJV) And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.
Is 38:5 (D-R) Go and say to Ezechias: Thus saith the Lord the God of David thy father: I have heard thy prayer, and I have seen thy tears: behold I will add to thy days fifteen years:

Calvin: The sacred history does not show that God’s decrees were abrogated when it relates that the destruction which had once been pronounced upon the Ninevites was remitted [Jonah 3:10]; and that Hezekiah’s life, after his death had been intimated, had been prolonged [Isa. 38:5].16 Those who think so are deceived in these intimations (Signs). Even though the latter make a simple affirmation, it is to be understood from the outcome that these nonetheless contain a tacit (Implied or understood) condition. For why did the Lord send Jonah to the Ninevites to foretell the ruin of the city? Why did he through Isaiah indicate death to Hezekiah? For he could have destroyed both the Ninevites and Hezekiah without any messenger of destruction. Therefore he had in view something other than that, forewarned of their death, they might discern it coming from a distance. Indeed, he did not wish them to perish, but to be changed lest they perish. Therefore Jonah’s prophecy that after forty days Nineveh would be destroyed was made so it might not fall......Who now does not see that it pleased the Lord by such threats to arouse to repentance those whom he was terrifying, that they might escape the judgment they deserved for their sins? If that is true, the nature of the circumstances leads us to recognize a tacit (Implied or understood) condition in the simple intimation (Notification).

My Comment: I have my interpretation but I would like to see yours first. This chapter is under Providence and this section has to do with God’s Repentance. Calvin is giving examples of God’s Repentance and in this particular example he is using one of Prophecy. I did not quote every word of this section but only the parts that were the most important to me. You will see dots between the parts I quoted. I just want to make sure I’m interpreting this right. Any help you can give would be greatly appreciated!

Nineveh was destroyed years later, so then a delay in the destruction.

I look at this example as one of those 'IF' things, even though not explicitly stated.
If you dont do this, then this will happen, but God did not offer the IF within the prophecy, but it was implied. Simply it shows the nature of God to forgive transgressions when people really do repent.

“Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”
And the people did repent, which is surprising to the natural mind because why would they?
I have heard some people say the sight of Jonah being vomited out of this whale creature and so this great thing that happened caused them to think God really did send Jonah. Another thing is Jonah did not say very much to them did he. So there was no great oratory of swelling words of gory prophetic destruction spoken. Which also makes the natural mind not want to believe that message. So then that they repented was of God. Jonah even tells the LORD that is why he did not want to go to Nineveh, cause God shows mercy to people who repent.

1 Now the word of the Lord came to Jonah the second time, saying, 2 “Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and preach to it the message that I tell you.” 3 So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the Lord. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, a three-day journey in extent. 4 And Jonah began to enter the city on the first day’s walk. Then he cried out and said, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”

Jonah 4
1 But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he became angry. 2 So he prayed to the Lord, and said, “Ah, Lord, was not this what I said when I was still in my country? Therefore I fled previously to Tarshish; for I know that You are a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, One who relents from doing harm. 3 Therefore now, O Lord, please take my life from me, for it is better for me to die than to live!”

4 Then the Lord said, “Is it right for you to be angry?”

 

[Scott Downey]

LaGrange do a lookup of forty. That particular number is used a lot in scripture by God when in days he deals with men.

Why not 30 or 50, something about 40, including into the NT with Christ, 40 must be just the right number somehow.

BibleGateway - Keyword Search: forty days

 

[LaGrange]

LaGrange do a lookup of forty. That particular number is used a lot in scripture by God when in days he deals with men.

Why not 30 or 50, something about 40, including into the NT with Christ, 40 must be just the right number somehow.

BibleGateway - Keyword Search: forty days

Hi Scott,
I think I see what you are saying. He didn’t have to use the word “If” because he said 40 and they probably knew what that meant. Thank you!