Contarini:
He isn’t as explicit about it as Calvin, but he does seem to teach a form of double predestination, yes. The catch would be “actively,” I think. I don’t think Augustine was worrying much about that distinction. One of Calvin’s sillier moves was rejecting the distinction between God’s action and permission.
Is it really a valid distinction to make ? What is odd, is that he sometimes uses the language of permission, yet at others he rejects the very idea that God “permits” anything.
On Romans 1.24:
…As to the manner in which God gives up or delivers men to wickedness, it is by no means necessary in this place to discuss a question so intricate, (
longam — tedious.) It is indeed certain, that he not only permits men to fall into sin, by allowing them to do so, and by conniving at them; but that he also, by his equitable judgment, so arranges things, that they are led and carried into such madness by their own lusts, as well as by the devil. He therefore adopts the word,
give up, according to the constant usage of Scripture; which word they forcibly wrest, who think that we are led into sin only by the permission of God: for as Satan is the minister of God’s wrath, and as it were the executioner, so he is armed against us, not through the connivance, but by the command of his judge. God, however, is not on this account cruel, nor are we innocent, inasmuch as Paul plainly shows, that we are not delivered up into his power, except when we deserve such a punishment. Only we must make this exception, that the cause of sin is not from God, the roots of which ever abide in the sinner himself; for this must be true, “Thine is perdition, O Israel; in me only is thy help.”
(Hosea 13:9)
[1]…
ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom38.htm
He can certainly claim a good deal of Biblical support, whether in Job, Amos, or 2 Thessalonians, for example, for the above conceptualisation of God’s activity; what he seems always to avoid, is making God the Author of sin.
On the other hand, there are times when the differences between Augustine (or even Aquinas) and Calvin do seem largely verbal–at least on the basic issue of double predestination. Of course there are other significant differences, such as Calvin’s teaching regarding the perseverance of all the regenerate.
Edwin
