Calvin and Calvinism
Part One
Calvin and Other Reformers
In some respects, Calvin shared many views with the other Reformers of his day, as well as the Protestant churches that arose from them. He viewed the scriptures alone as our authority in matters of faith and practice. He held to “Covenant Theology”, and thus worked to set up a theocracy in Geneva where government and church are closely tied to one another. On that same principle, he opposed the Anabaptists and supported infant baptism. He most certainly asserted, along with many others, the principle of Sola Fide, or, justification by faith alone. But Calvin, to a degree and consistency that we find in no other Reformer, traced Sola Fide back to a more fundamental principle--Sola Gratia. He, more than any other Reformer, insisted that salvation in all its aspects arose solely from the ground of God’s grace. Saving faith, in his eyes, was not the contribution of man, but was itself a gift of God’s grace. It is especially this area of his theology, which he so clearly and forcefully annunciated, that is known today by the nickname “Calvinism”. In modern times, this name is usually associated with Calvin’s teaching concerning Predestination and God’s decrees of election and reprobation.
But, as strange as it sounds, “Calvinism” did not really originate with John Calvin. If it did, we would have every reason to be suspicious and leery of it! Calvin was a great admirer and student of Augustine, who had lived some 1000 years earlier. Augustine, as you may remember, was especially fond of Pauline teaching regarding such matters. To counter the charge that he was concocting novel doctrines and opinions—a charge often leveled at him by the Romanists--Calvin appealed to Augustine’s teachings as proof that these views had been held at an early date in the church. However, he neither blindly follows nor merely parrots Augustine, but goes far beyond his master in both his originality and development of thought.
Calvinism is often reduced to five points represented by the acronym “TULIP”. This stands for “Total Depravity”, “Unconditional Election”, “Limited Atonement”, “Irresistible Grace”, and the “Perseverance, or Preservation, of the Saints”. While this formulation is a helpful tool for memorization purposes, it should always be remembered that Calvin himself never formulated his teachings in this manner. The “five points of Calvinism”, as these are sometimes called, first arose in Holland in the early 17th century to counter the “Remonstrance”, a five-point statement by the followers of Jacobi Arminius. In addition, the acronym “TULIP”, so far as I can tell, originated from the ministry of Lorraine Boettner in the 20th century.
The Crucial Point
With Calvin, the crucial point in understanding the theology of salvation lay in recognizing the condition of man since the fall of Adam. If we deny the fall (as did Pelagius), or the totality of the fall (as did Arminius), we may well view salvation resulting from either man’s work alone or from a cooperation between man and God. But if we view man as totally fallen, under the curse of God, with a fallen nature that can neither choose nor perform what is good in God’s sight, then salvation simply must be a work of God from start to last. If we admit the first point, the others must logically follow as a consequence.
It is, therefore, no accident that this was the point historically attacked by the enemies of this doctrinal system. It was the crucial point of contention between Augustine and Pelagius, Luther and Erasmus, and between Calvin and Bolsec. Later, it would be the main point of contention between the Reformed Church, who followed Calvin’s thought, and the followers of Arminius. In fact, three main schools of theology can be segregated by their view of the fall: Pelagianism, which denies the fall; Arminianism (sometimes called Semi-Pelagianism), which denies the totality of the fall; and Calvinism, which upholds the totality of the fall.
Calvin and Hyper-Calvinism
The term “Hyper-Calvinism” refers to a system of theology that goes “beyond” Calvinism. Today, the term is ignorantly bandied about by Arminians who readily apply it to anyone who believes in Election or Predestination. By this definition, Calvin himself would have been a Hyper-Calvinist! I’m using the term in a more historical sense, as referring to those who use the Calvinistic system to deny the free offer of the Gospel, human responsibility, the duty of man to repent and believe on Christ, or the validity of evangelism and missions.
To understand the logic behind Hyper-Calvinism (and it strongly appeals to logic!), one must understand the difference between Infralapsarianism and Supralapsarianism. The terms Infra and Supra mean “below” and “above” respectively, and the term lapsus refers to the fall. These terms arise as a consequence of seeking to understand the place of election in the order of God’s eternal decrees. It’s important to realize that these terms do not refer to the actual order of these events in human history, but to their logical order in God’s eternal plan. Both sides agree that the plan was ordained in eternity, before “the foundation of the world”. The controversy arises over the ordering of these decrees in the mind of God.
In the Infralapsarian scheme, the order of God’s decrees is given as follows:
1) The decree to create man
2) The decree to allow the fall
3) The decree to elect some to salvation, passing over the others
4) The decree to redeem the elect through the work of Christ
The Supralapsarian scheme reverses the order:
1) The decree to glorify His grace in election & His justice in reprobation
2) The decree to create individuals to populate each class
3) The decree to ordain the fall
4) The decree to redeem the elect through the work of Christ
While this may seem, at first glance, to be nothing more than an empty intellectual exercise, there are some very important ramifications that “fall out” of these systems! Note that Infralapsarianism distinguishes between a “permissive” decree, which merely “allows” or “permits” the fall, and between an “active” or “efficient” decree that “causes” the fall—such as we find in Supralapsarianism. Though both sides deny God as the culpable Author of the Fall, the Infralap-
sarian does so more logically, as he excludes God from “causation”. However, the Supralap-sarian points out that a “permissive” decree doesn’t really ensure the thing decreed!
Note that in the Infralapsarian system, God’s election and reprobation views man as fallen. This means that reprobation is viewed as a “passing over”, or preterition, of the non-elect. In this case, God is choosing to redeem some who do not deserve it while leaving others to receive the just damnation for their sin. In the Supralapsarian system, God’s decrees of election and reprobation have as their object unfallen man. This means that men are created destined either for grace or wrath, irrespective of their state of guilt, a view sometimes termed “Double Predestination”.
As is probably apparent, the Supralapsarian scheme denies there can possibly be anything in the atonement for the non-elect. This usually, though not always, results in the denial of a universal duty of all men to believe the Gospel (so-called “duty faith”), as well as a duty to proclaim the Gospel to all (the free offer). Historically, the Supralapsarian position has a tendency towards the doctrine of Eternal Justification, which claims that the elect were justified through God’s eternal decree, and were never really “lost”.
Calvin’s Position
Both schools of thought claim Calvin. When examining his statements, he seems to steer a middle course between them, depending on the text.
For instance: When we examine his comments on Rom. 9 (recall that this was his first commentary), it seems he takes a definite Infralapsarian course. Listen to his comment upon Romans 9:11, where he views God’s dealings with Jacob and Esau. Calvin has just alluded to the fact that the distinction between them could not be drawn on the basis of foreseen good, because there is nothing in the corrupt nature of man that’s pleasing to Him:
When therefore he says that neither of them had then done any good or evil, what he took as granted must also be added--that they were both the children of Adam, by nature sinful, and endued with no particle of righteousness….
It may further be said, that though that corruption alone, which is diffused through the whole race of man, is sufficient, before it breaks out, as they say, into action, for condemnation, and hence it follows, that Esau was justly rejected, for he was naturally a child of wrath, it was yet necessary, lest any doubt should remain, as though his condition became worse through any vice or fault, that sins no less than virtues should be excluded.
However, at other points, Calvin takes a Supralapsarian turn. Concerning whether the fall was ordained or merely allowed, he writes in his Institutes, Vol. 3, Chap. 23:7-8:
It is not absurd to assert that God not only foresaw, but also foreordained the fall of Adam and the ruin of his posterity. What reason shall we assign for God’s permitting the destruction of the impious, but because it is His will? It is not probable that man procured his own destruction by the mere permission, and without any appointment of God. As though God had not determined what he would choose to be the condition of the chief of His creatures. I shall not hesitate, therefore, to confess with Augustin, ‘that the will of God is the necessity of things, and what he has willed will necessarily come to pass; as those things are really about to happen which he has foreseen.
Yet Calvin stops short of making God the Author of sin. Writing again he says:
Man falls, God’s providence so ordaining it; yet he falls by his own guilt.
Inconsistent? Perhaps, yet Calvin (as well as Augustine), when intellectual logic collided with moral logic, always leaned towards the latter.
It should be noted that Calvin parted company with the Romanists on the state of infants dying unbaptized. The Catholics, as you might expect with their emphasis on baptismal regeneration, claimed no unbaptized child could go to heaven (Augustine agreed with this position). They invented a special state for infants in the future world, Limbus Infantum, which they described as more a state of deprivation than punishment. Calvin denied the necessity of water baptism (i.e. sprinkling, in his view) and made the salvation of infants depend on election alone. Thus, he held that all elect infants go to heaven, regardless of whether or not they’ve been baptized. (Most denominations today go much farther than this, asserting that all infants are saved. Calvin clearly did not hold this position.)
Concerning reprobation, Calvin writes: “It is an awful decree (decretum horribile), I confess, but no one can deny that God foreknew the future, final fate of man before He created him, and that he did foreknow it, because it was appointed by His own decree.”
Final Considerations
The strength of Supralapsarianism is its logic, relying on the observation by Aristotle that “what is last in execution is first in design”. Its weakness is the difficulty of reconciling the Biblical assertion of God choosing the elect “in Christ” (Eph. 1:4) with its claim that the decree to elect was prior to the decree to redeem! On the other hand, Infralapsarianism leads to a much warmer and more evangelistic form of Calvinism. Further, it fits, in my view, the tone and tenor of scripture much more perfectly than the other view. It is weak in explaining how God can permissively decree the fall and the reprobation of man.
It may well be that the matter of enquiring into the order of God’s decrees is to pry into regions God never intended for us to explore! After all, what does Aristotle have to do with Christianity? How can we be sure what seems to be a valid rule for human logic is applicable to Divine wisdom? Further, how can we even talk in terms to prior and subsequent decrees in eternity, where there is no “before” or “after”?
Whether Infralapsarianism is valid or not, it seems to me that it more precisely fits the Bible data. For instance, the “lump” of Rom. 9:21—is it fallen or unfallen? If God makes from this lump “vessels of wrath” (Vs. 22) and “vessels of mercy” (Vs. 23), it appears to me that this must be a fallen lump, for both “wrath” and “mercy”, received from a holy God, presuppose a state of sin!
Also, the Infralapsarian scheme fits better with our election “in Christ” (Eph. 1:4). This then would explain why those outside of Christ, whether elect or not, are called “children of wrath, even as others” in Eph. 2:3. Further, it draws attention to the duty upon all men to receive Christ by faith and enter into a living union with Him.
Lastly, this scheme also dovetails more naturally with the universal offer of Christ to all men. If there is nothing available for the non-elect in Christ, even if they did come to Him in faith, then it’s difficult to see how this could possibly be a genuine offer. Far better to believe that there is sufficiency in Christ to save whoever believes on Him, regardless of the decree of election.