# Calvin on Reprobation - Inconsistent?



## CharlieJ (Jul 10, 2011)

I've come across a section in Calvin's Malachi commentary that I'm having trouble understanding. It seems that Calvin switches from an infralapsarian to a supralapsarian logic midstream. 

Here is the original blog-post that drew my attention: Der Evangelische Theologe: Reading Scripture with John Calvin: Malachi 1.2-6

Here is a link to the whole lecture by Calvin: .


Here is the confusing paragraph:

As to reprobation, the *cause of it is sufficiently
manifest in the fall of Adam*, for, as we have said, we
all fell with him. It must still be observed, that the
election of God is anterior to Adam's fall; and that
hence all we who are rescued from the common ruin have
been chosen in Christ before the creation of the world,
but that others justly perish *though they had not been
lost in Adam*; because God appointed Christ the head of
his Church, in order that we might be saved in him, not
all, but those who have been chosen. 


How do we reconcile that the "cause" of reprobation is "sufficiently manifest in the fall of Adam" and that "others justly perish though they had not been lost in Adam"? I'm completely befuddled by that last statement. After all, "chosen before the creation of the world" is not necessarily supralapsarian, but with the addition of the later text it certainly sounds like it.


----------



## Andres (Jul 10, 2011)

I think that hurts my head before church. Have a blessed Lord's Day!


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jul 10, 2011)




----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 10, 2011)

I see what you're getting at, Charlie, and I think the answer must lie in an equivocation (perhaps intentional) on the meaning or idea of "cause" in that section.

In the first case, we have a cause that is "manifested" to human observation--this is the infra, the historical reckoning. We instinctively get the connection between Adam's fall and the reprobation of those who fall forever on account of that ruin. God passes over his opportunity to save this one or that, from a fallen race.

But Calvin is not willing to rest in that consideration, and rises to a consideration of election and reprobation that does not depend on any prior conditions (+/-) in the persons whatever. The reprobate are perishing "justly" (Calvin says) though historically they were not yet "lost in Adam." Even as the elect are appointed to a salvation/union with Christ that is independent of the historic process that establishes the need for salvation or the benefits of union unobtainable by other means.

This is "absolute predestination;" not that God has severed it from the historic consideration, but that whenever we consider absolute predestination, we discover just how much is left of our lack of utter humility and abasement before a God that has _this kind of right_ over his creature. No back-talk, or reconsideration of his goodness and justice is permitted. The question is: will we accept that the Lord alone is Judge, and right and good by definition. A perfectly subservient creature (and perfect in everything!) would, as Christ did, accept what seemed to a mere creature's perceptions like an unfathomable injustice. "Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?"

Job's example is probably the closest a sinful man can get to apprehending true submission to God's sovereignty. He deals with these very questions, he fights through to a resolution that will never satisfy the proud man, so confident of his judgments in law. Job has those judgments to begin with, and he sheds them by story's end. "Though he slay me, yet will I trust him." Who can say such a thing?


Perhaps, somewhat like Luther (though clearly different as well), Calvin wants to anchor our consideration of predestination not in the secrets of God's absolute decree, but in the concrete and historical. The infralapsarian description removes one more obstacle that the proud man raises to the notion of God's sovereignty, by showing that election can be understood as God's first considering all men together as ill-deserving, yet exercising his right to grant or withhold mercy as he pleases. The supralapsarian position lets that obstacle (and all the others) stand when God is considered in his absolute position. Creatures have no claims whatever on their Creator. A hard pill to swallow.


----------



## MW (Jul 10, 2011)

When Calvin discusses the fall in this hypothetical manner it is often in order to show the relation of the means to the end in God's purpose. His Christological focus may also be of help. The headship of Christ is the eschatological goal of creation and the penultimate end of God's decree, behind the manifestation of the glory of God. Hence, even apart from the fall, mankind would have fallen short of the end for which God created the world. This end was only ordained to be accomplished in Christ that in all things He might have the pre-eminence.


----------



## Mushroom (Jul 10, 2011)

One lump of clay. Formed as the Potter sees fit. Fully within His right, and done so in righteousness before the creation of the world.


----------



## CharlieJ (Jul 11, 2011)

Rev. Buchanan, I think I'm coming to understand what you say, but I may need a few more nudges. Your sentence "Calvin is not willing to rest in that consideration" does seem to match the flow of the passage. Is it that Calvin is actually discussing the doctrine of election on two different levels, or from two different viewpoints? If so, does the second half of the passage actually supercede, or offer a more ultimate view than the first half?

Rev. Winzer, when you say Calvin is discussing the fall in a hypothetical manner, are you referring to the second half of the quoted paragraph? If so, are you saying further that, even if Adam had not fallen, humanity still would not have fulfilled its purpose? How would that be?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 11, 2011)

In my reading of Calvin, seems he often "covers the bases," pertaining to a given subject. If something he writes suggests a potential objection or branch of thought, he'll hit that for completeness' sake. All to say that in the excerpt provided, it seems to me that Calvin aims to affirm an absolutely sovereign divine decision in respect to election _and_ reprobation, the *ultimate cause* of which is not historical or any interior quality in the creation.

"Sufficiently manifest" (in the earlier portion) is the relevant qualifying term in the first portion. Calvin seems to say, "that's enough, to account for the perfect justice of God, and we could just leave it there."


----------

