Luke 22:22
“For indeed, the Son of Man is going as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!”
The key word is “determined,” as it pertains to the Calvinist doctrine of Determinism. What follows is a series of comments by John Calvin:
John Calvin: “Christ declares that all this occurred by the Will of God. The decree He proves by the testimony of Scripture, or He revealed by the mouth of His ancient prophet what had been determined.” (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: Matthew, Mark and Luke Vol. III, and James and Jude, p.129, emphasis mine)
Again, the key word is “determined.”
John Calvin: “Now we see the aim of Christ’s words: that the disciples should know that whatever happens is guided by God’s providence and they should not reckon that chance played any part in His life, or in His death.” (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: Matthew, Mark and Luke Vol. III, and James and Jude, p.129, emphasis mine)
This quote reveals Calvin’s deterministic perspective, viz. “whatever happens.”
John Calvin: “The fruits of Christ’s death have only made their lasting impression upon us when we know that He was not rudely snatched away to the cross by men, but that the sacrifice was ordained by the eternal decree of God, to expiate the sins of the world.” (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: Matthew, Mark and Luke Vol. III, and James and Jude, pp.129-130, emphasis mine)
Yes, Jesus’ sacrifice was “ordained by the eternal decree of God,” but what was it based upon? Was it part of a Script that God just so happened to write, or was it based upon something else? That question will be addressed by John Calvin as he develops his argument.
John Calvin: “Christ says that Judas is not absolved from blame on the grounds that he did nothing but what was divinely ordained. Though God in His righteous judgment fixed the price of redemption for us as the death of His own Son, nonetheless Judas in betraying Christ, being full of treachery and greed, drew on himself a right condemnation. God’s will for the redemption of the world in no way prevents Judas [from] being a wicked traitor. Hence we see, though men cannot do any thing but what God has appointed, they are not for that reason absolved from guilt: their wicked desires leads them on to sin. Granted God may lead them with a rein too light to notice, to a destination unknown, yet nothing is more contrary to their purpose than to obey His decrees.” (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: Matthew, Mark and Luke Vol. III, and James and Jude, p.130, emphasis mine)
That doesn’t make any sense. It’s like saying that if God were to create a robot, and if that robot were to do exactly what it was programmed to do, then because God did the programming, there is a logical basis behind which the robot may be held accountable. The problem is that it’s Special Pleading.
John Calvin: “No doubt to human reason these two principles appear inconsistent with each other; that God should arrange human affairs by His Providence so that nothing happens other than by His Will and bidding, and that He should destroy the reprobate by whom He achieves His ends. We see how Christ reconciles these two, placing Judas under a curse although it was divinely appointed that he should plot against God as he did, not that the treachery of Judas should properly be called a work of God, but because God bent the treachery of Judas to the fulfillment of His purpose.” (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: Matthew, Mark and Luke Vol. III, and James and Jude, p.130, emphasis mine)
We are not told why it shouldn’t be properly called a “work of God.” Rather, we are merely told that this is simply so, which is just more Special Pleading.
John Calvin: “I know that some interpreters try to steer clear of this rock, and say that what was written was fulfilled by Judas’ action in so far as God testified by oracle what He knew beforehand. So to soften a doctrine that appears to them rather harsh they put God’s prescience in place of His decree, as if God were looking down from a great height on future events but not disposing them by His will. The Spirit composes this debate quite differently: He not only gives the reason for Christ’s betrayal as the fact of its being so written but equally of its being so determined.” (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: Matthew, Mark and Luke Vol. III, and James and Jude, p.130, emphasis mine)
In other words, if God has “determined” for something to happen, then His doings cannot have anything to do with what He knows that man will do. Compare with Exodus 3:19-20: “But I know that the king of Egypt will not permit you to go, except under compulsion. So I will stretch out My hand and strike Egypt with all My miracles which I shall do in the midst of it; and after that he will let you go.”
Again, this is simply more Special Pleading.
John Calvin: “When Matthew and Mark adduce Scripture, Luke leads us direct to the heavenly decree for as he teaches us in Acts, Christ was betrayed not only with God’s prescience but by His definite counsel, and, a little later, that Herod and Pilate acted along with the other wicked men in performance of what was pre-ordained by God’s hand and purpose. It is a patent and foolish reversal of the facts to take refuge in prescience alone.” (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: Matthew, Mark and Luke Vol. III, and James and Jude, p.130, emphasis mine)
Obviously no one is arguing for “prescience alone,” but rather that God’s prescience is the basis for His action.
Laurence Vance: “If God determined the crucifixion of his Son by a sovereign, eternal decree, with no foreknowledge at all involved (it was unconditional), then we are left with the ghastly, draconian thought that God decreed the death of his Son and then created man so he could fall and God could bring about his decree of crucifixion.” (The Other Side of Calvinism, p.266)
Dave Hunt: “…God foreknew the evil in everyone’s hearts and the actions they would take and that He used them to fulfill His preordained purpose. It does not say that God decreed or caused the evil intentions and actions of Pilate and Christ’s crucifiers.” (Debating Calvinism, p.52)
