Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
It is true that Calvin wrote some things that would seem to indicate he would have been in sympathy with a symmetric form of supralapsarianism, although the debate about supralapsarianism per se, did not occur in his lifetime (see Calvin's Calvinism, trans. by Henry Cole, 89ff; also William Cunningham, The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, 364ff).
Calvin wrote:
It is important to understand what Calvin is not saying in this often quoted passage, erroneously argued by some that Calvin supported equal ultimacy supralapsarianism, in his Institutes. In order to prove that Calvin held to supralapsarianism it is not enough to show that he believed that the fall was decreed (Calvin did, and it (the fall) was), for this is admitted by all sublapsarians (infralapsarians). Rather it must be shown that the fall was decreed as a means towards carrying out a previous decree to save some and leave the others to perish—a view Calvin turned from as an otiose curiositas (idle curiosity) in Book 3, Chapter 21 in the Institutes. Nothing in what Calvin wrote supported this key distinction.
I have no quarrels with a supralapsarian view, when properly distinguished from the terrible equal ultimacy view. The entire supra vs. infra discussion is a Reformed in house debate that those standing outside the Reformed tradition rarely take the time to fully understand. For that matter, not a few self-described Calvinists actually understand all the various nuances surrounding the discussion. And if you are someone reading this and do not understand the terms being used herein, yet you consider yourself infra or supra, then you need to dig a wee bit deeper into the entire topic.
But what I will quibble with is the assertion that Calvin believed in equal utlimacy regarding the decree of predestination of the elect and the foreordaining of the reprobate. All should observe that the WCF uses two different words: “predestined” and “foreordained”. What’s happening in both cases is similar but not precisely interchangeable.
Those that adopt the equal ultimacy view are hard-core hyper-Calvinists, and these very vocal folks are the root of much misunderstanding of Calvinism by the uninformed. As a result of these vocal (and wrong) folks, I am sure that many of us will agree that we spend a great deal of time and energy disabusing the claims of the anti-Calvinist concerning what they think we believe, versus what we actually believe, about the whole matter of what is broadly labeled as predestination.
The supralapsarian view was formulated by Theodore Beza, (one of Jacob Arminius’ teachers), who propounded the doctrine at the Colloquy of Mümpelgart, Mar. 14–27, 1586, some twenty-two years after Calvin’s death. Beza’s Greek editions (Beza and Calvin were taught Greek by Melchior Wolmar) and Latin translations of the New Testament were basic sources for the Geneva Bible and the 1611 King James Version. Those familiar with Calvin’s full corpus of writings would agree that Beza would have not succeeded in his efforts had Calvin been alive. Unfortunately, Beza’s supralapsarianism is what most non-Calvinists think Calvinism represents. May it never be!
AMR
Calvin wrote:
- "The decree, I admit, is, dreadful; and yet it is impossible to deny that God foreknow what the end of man was to be before he made him, and foreknew, because he had so ordained by his decree. Should any one here inveigh against the prescience of God, he does it rashly and unadvisedly. For why, pray, should it be made a charge against the heavenly Judge, that he was not ignorant of what was to happen? Thus, if there is any just or plausible complaint, it must be directed against predestination. Nor ought it to seem absurd when I say, that God not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and in him the ruin of his posterity; but also at his own pleasure arranged it. For as it belongs to his wisdom to foreknow all future events, so it belongs to his power to rule and govern them by his hand" (Institutes of the Christian Religion, III.xxiii.7)
It is important to understand what Calvin is not saying in this often quoted passage, erroneously argued by some that Calvin supported equal ultimacy supralapsarianism, in his Institutes. In order to prove that Calvin held to supralapsarianism it is not enough to show that he believed that the fall was decreed (Calvin did, and it (the fall) was), for this is admitted by all sublapsarians (infralapsarians). Rather it must be shown that the fall was decreed as a means towards carrying out a previous decree to save some and leave the others to perish—a view Calvin turned from as an otiose curiositas (idle curiosity) in Book 3, Chapter 21 in the Institutes. Nothing in what Calvin wrote supported this key distinction.
I have no quarrels with a supralapsarian view, when properly distinguished from the terrible equal ultimacy view. The entire supra vs. infra discussion is a Reformed in house debate that those standing outside the Reformed tradition rarely take the time to fully understand. For that matter, not a few self-described Calvinists actually understand all the various nuances surrounding the discussion. And if you are someone reading this and do not understand the terms being used herein, yet you consider yourself infra or supra, then you need to dig a wee bit deeper into the entire topic.
But what I will quibble with is the assertion that Calvin believed in equal utlimacy regarding the decree of predestination of the elect and the foreordaining of the reprobate. All should observe that the WCF uses two different words: “predestined” and “foreordained”. What’s happening in both cases is similar but not precisely interchangeable.
Those that adopt the equal ultimacy view are hard-core hyper-Calvinists, and these very vocal folks are the root of much misunderstanding of Calvinism by the uninformed. As a result of these vocal (and wrong) folks, I am sure that many of us will agree that we spend a great deal of time and energy disabusing the claims of the anti-Calvinist concerning what they think we believe, versus what we actually believe, about the whole matter of what is broadly labeled as predestination.
The supralapsarian view was formulated by Theodore Beza, (one of Jacob Arminius’ teachers), who propounded the doctrine at the Colloquy of Mümpelgart, Mar. 14–27, 1586, some twenty-two years after Calvin’s death. Beza’s Greek editions (Beza and Calvin were taught Greek by Melchior Wolmar) and Latin translations of the New Testament were basic sources for the Geneva Bible and the 1611 King James Version. Those familiar with Calvin’s full corpus of writings would agree that Beza would have not succeeded in his efforts had Calvin been alive. Unfortunately, Beza’s supralapsarianism is what most non-Calvinists think Calvinism represents. May it never be!
AMR