December 27, 2010: Plain Speech On The Destiny Of Sinners

What do you think of the following quote from John Calvin?

When men have repented, and thus give evidence that they are reconciled to God, they are no longer the same persons that they formerly were. But let all fornicators, or unclean or covetous persons, so long as they continue such, be assured that they have no friendship with God, and are deprived of all hope of salvation.

Too strong?

In a church I have attended, we sing a chorus that goes

I am a friend of God!
I am a friend of God!
I am a friend of God!
He's my friend!

We repeat these phrases ad nauseum - literally, to the vomiting - to the point where I wonder if many who came to church longing for reverent and thoughtful worship now just want to go home. But I will leave aside the matter of lyrics that indulge our passion for "vain repetition" (Matthew 6:7). I will also leave aside the question of whether, since God calls some people his friends (Exodus 33:11, John 15:15, James 2:23), it is therefore right for us to call ourselves his friends. (The answer is a resounding "NO!" - but again, I will leave that discussion for another day.)

The question I am interested in now is whether Calvin was right that fornicators, coveters and immoral people "have no friendship with God" and "are deprived of all hope of salvation." (Please note Calvin's qualifier, so long as they continue such.)

What do you think? And what do you think would happen if Calvin preached that message at your church this Sunday? What if he told the greedy people in your church, and the people who sleep with their boyfriends and girlfriends, that they lied when they sang, "I am a friend of God"? What if he told them that they were not saved, that they were on their way to hell, that for them (as long as they continued in their sin) there was "only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God" (Hebrews 10:27)? Would Reverend Calvin be invited back to your church next Sunday?

And not just Calvin. Read Jonathan Edwards' Treatise On The Religious Affections, Dietrich Bonehoeffer's Cost Of Discipleship, or any half dozen of Charles Spurgeon's sermons, and ask yourself how many modern pulpits are there out of which such men would not be chased. Spurgeon - to cite one example - flatly denied that liars are saved. "If God has not made you honest," he preached, "he has not saved your soul." It is inconceivable that such a statement would go unchallenged in just about any large church today. The elders would want to meet with Spurgeon afterward. They would protest that he had denied the gospel of grace, and that he didn't understand that God saves us "just the way we are" (even if we remain liars), and that there is nothing we have to do (like tell the truth) to be in good standing with God. "All the other religions of the world are spelled 'D-O,' Charles!" (Of course, Spurgeon, whose blood ran bibline, would respond to such misguided rhetoric by quoting Revelation 21:8.)

Ever since I left the pulpit in August of 2009 and have of necessity been doing a lot more listening than preaching and teaching, I have experienced a growing sense of spiritual vertigo. (My lovely, longsuffering wife has borne the brunt of this turmoil in countless discussions - she's the only poor creature I have to preach to!) My disquiet has to do with the fact that so many concepts that I assumed were second nature to Bible-believing Christians (damnation of the wicked, transformational grace, perseverance of the saints) are in fact controversial, and have met with stubborn, almost angry opposition. That is one reason why I post the Calvin quote above and ask if you agree with it. Do you think Calvin is obviously correct? Controversial? At odds with what you tend to hear on Sunday mornings? Or is he just utterly wrong, judgmental and grace-defying?

Before you say you disagree with Calvin, please be advised that he was commenting rather straightforwardly on Ephesians 5:5: "For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person — such a person is an idolater — has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." I myself cannot see how, biblically, Calvin's comment can be assailed on any point whatsoever.

I'll go further. If we agree with Ephesians 5:5 and Calvin's pedestrian interpretation of it, are we willing to say it? Will we dare preach it from our pulpits? Will we ever dare apply it to some individual who persists in unrepentant sin? Or do we prefer to leave it unsaid, cover its light with a bushel basket lest the searing heat offend and alienate?

When commenting on the related rhetorical question in 1 Corinthians 6:9: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God?" Calvin wrote,

The wicked, then, do inherit the kingdom of God, but it is only in the event of their having been first converted to the Lord in true repentance, and having in this way ceased to be wicked. For although conversion is not the ground of pardon, yet we know that none are reconciled to God but those who repent. The [question mark]...is emphatic, for it intimates that he states nothing but what they themselves know, and is matter of common remark among all pious persons.

In St Paul's day, and in Calvin's, it was indeed a "matter of common remark among all pious persons" that the wicked do not inherit the kingdom of God. Is it still so in ours?