Thanks to Randy Booth, who supplied me with some interesting quotes on general and special election from Calvin.
Here, then, a twofold class of sons presents itself to us, in the Church; for since the whole body of the people is gathered together into the fold of God, by one and the same voice, all without exception, are, in this respect, accounted children; the name of the Church is applicable in common to them all: but in the innermost sanctuary of God, none others are reckoned the sons of God, than they in whom the promise is ratified by faith. And although this difference flows from the fountain of gratuitous election, whence also faith itself springs; yet, since the counsel of God is in itself hidden from us, we therefore distinguish the true from the spurious children, by the respective marks of faith and of unbelief. [John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1979), 1:449.]
We must now add a second, more limited degree of election, or one in which God’s more special grace was evident, that is, when from the same race of Abraham God rejected some but showed that he kept others among his sons by cherishing them in the church. Ishmael had at first obtained equal rank with his brother Isaac, for in him the spiritual covenant had been equally sealed by the sign of circumcision. Ishmael is cut off; then Esau; afterward, a countless multitude, and well-nigh all Israel… By their own defect and guilt, I admit, Ishmael, Esau, and the like were cut off from adoption. For the condition had been laid down that they should faithfully keep God’s covenant, which they faithlessly violated. [Calvin, Institutes, 3:21:6, cited in Lillback, Binding of God, p. 215].
So the answer may be divided into two parts—that God has by no means cast away the whole race of Abraham contrary to the tenor of his own covenant—and that yet the fruit of adoption does not exist in all the children of the flesh, for secret election precedes. [Calvin, Commentaries, 19:410, Rom. 11:2, cited in Lillback, Binding of God, p. 215].
But here someone may object and say, that it is strange that the posterity of Jacob should be said to have been elected in his person, and yet they had in the meantime departed from God; for the election of God in this case would not be sure and permanent; and we know that whom God elects he also justifies, and their salvation is so secured, that none of them can perish; all the elect are also delivered to Christ as their preserver, that he may keep them by his divine power, which is invincible, as John teaches in chapter 10. What then does this mean? Now we know, and it has been before stated, that the election of God as to that people was twofold; for the one was general, and the other special. The election of holy Jacob was special, for he was really one of the children of God; special also was the election of those who are called by Paul the children of the promise (Romans9:8). There was another, a general election; for he received his whole seed into his faith, and offered to all his covenant. At the same time, they were not all regenerated, they were not all gifted with the Spirit of adoption. This general election was not then efficacious in all. Solved now is the matter in debate, that no one of the elect shall perish; for the whole people were not elected in a special manner; but God knew whom he had chosen out of that people; and them he endued, as we have said, with the Spirit of adoption, and supplied with his own grace, that they might never fall away. Others were indeed chosen in a certain way, that is, God offered to them the covenant of salvation; but yet through their ingratitude they caused God to reject them, and to disown them as children (John Calvin, Commentary on Hosea 12:3-5).
So why then am I up to my neck in our little Reformed contretemps? Why are comments from various people’s blogs buzzing angrily around my head? “Ah,” someone might say, “it is because you make the distinction Calvin makes without all those wholesome and edifying qualifications.” The problem here is that not only do I agree with Calvin’s distinction between general and special election, but I also agree with all those wholesome and edifying qualifications — and always have. Not only have I held to them since first becoming a Calvinist in the late eighties, I have not been shy about saying so. I am not just busting them out now in order to exasperate my accusers by becoming orthodox at the last minute.