Basil Hall on Supralapsarianism

[Justified]

I was reading Basil Hall's essay Calvin against the Calvinists. There were many remarks that he made that frustrated me, but this one here made me cringe: "Beza taught Supralapsarianism (that is, the view that God decreed from before creation everything which comes near to being thoroughgoing determinism)." I don't mean to be disrespectful, but this is pitiful scholarship. That has nothing to do with supralapsarianism.

He also seems to think that Calvin didn't believe in the imputation of Adam's sin (I thought I remember finding a quote in Calvin's Institutes where he affirms it, but I can't remember where). Hall also on the same page of the quote above thinks that the free offer of the gospel and limited atonement are mutually exclusive: "Beza taught explicitly that Christ died... only for the elect... whereas Calvin... held that the Gospel is offered by God for all mankind, and that we should offer it to all men." Sigh. Where does he get from Beza that the Gospel shouldn't be proclaimed to all men? Nowhere! He thinks by saying that Calvin believed that that he has demonstrated that Calvin didn't believe in limited atonement.

These are just some of many infuriating examples of poor scholarship. Richard Muller et al. have done a great service to the church by refuting this nonsense.

 

[timfost]

He also seems to think that Calvin didn't believe in the imputation of Adam's sin (I thought I remember finding a quote in Calvin's Institutes where he affirms it, but I can't remember where).

Institutes 2.1.5-9.

Hall also on the same page of the quote above thinks that the free offer of the gospel and limited atonement are mutually exclusive: "Beza taught explicitly that Christ died... only for the elect... whereas Calvin... held that the Gospel is offered by God for all mankind, and that we should offer it to all men."

Calvin used the classic formula "sufficient for all, effective for the elect." Even though many puritans would understand that formula slightly differently than Calvin, it hardly qualifies as a denial of limited atonement.

These are just some of many infuriating examples of poor scholarship.

Well, I think you convinced me to not read the book.

 

[Justified]

He also seems to think that Calvin didn't believe in the imputation of Adam's sin (I thought I remember finding a quote in Calvin's Institutes where he affirms it, but I can't remember where).

Institutes 2.1.5-9.

Hall also on the same page of the quote above thinks that the free offer of the gospel and limited atonement are mutually exclusive: "Beza taught explicitly that Christ died... only for the elect... whereas Calvin... held that the Gospel is offered by God for all mankind, and that we should offer it to all men."

Calvin used the classic formula "sufficient for all, effective for the elect." Even though many puritans would understand that formula slightly differently than Calvin, it hardly qualifies as a denial of limited atonement.

These are just some of many infuriating examples of poor scholarship.

Well, I think you convinced me to not read the book.

Haha! It's a really short article in a book. I'm only reading it so that I can understand the debate. It's tough to follow Paul Helm and Muller's arguments if you haven't read any of the opposing literature.

 

[Justified]

Also, I just gave a quick cursory reading of the spot you gave in the Institutes and there Calvin doesn't seem to indicate the imputation of Adam's sin. He seems only to be arguing for the position that Adam was the root of all mankind and from him we inherit corruption.

Strangely enough, I thought I remember reading about Calvin saying something about the imputation of Adam's sin in his discussion of the sacraments of all places. Though I may be confusing books that I am reading. I've been reading Machen's lectures on atonement and Augustine while reading Calvin on the sacraments, and so I may have confused something they said for something Calvin said.

 

[timfost]

Also, I just gave a quick cursory reading of the spot you gave in the Institutes and there Calvin doesn't seem to indicate the imputation of Adam's sin. He seems only to be arguing for the position that Adam was the root of all mankind and from him we inherit corruption.

What is the difference between original sin and sin by imputation?

 

[Justified]

Also, I just gave a quick cursory reading of the spot you gave in the Institutes and there Calvin doesn't seem to indicate the imputation of Adam's sin. He seems only to be arguing for the position that Adam was the root of all mankind and from him we inherit corruption.

What is the difference between original sin and sin by imputation?

For starters, the dichotomy you give isn't correct. The question is what view of original sin we're talking about. Here is a basic sketch of different views:

(1) No original sin. Adam was just a bad example, and we as human beings tend to follow his example. (Pelagianism)

(2) Original sin only as corruption: we receive a corrupted nature through our father Adam.

(3) Original sin both as corruption stemming from our first father and as an imputation of his sin. Imputation means to "count as" or "to be reckoned as." So this view of original sin would say that Adam's sin is counted against us as if we had done it ourselves. The guilt of Adam's sin (see WSC Q.18) is counted as our own guilt, and we can be punished for it. This view also affirms that our nature is corrupted.

View two and three are both orthodox, though the third view is what you will see in the Westminster Standards. Basil Hall is arguing that Calvin doesn't affirm view three.

 

[MW]

Richard Muller et al. have done a great service to the church by refuting this nonsense.

You can say that again!

 

[timfost]

...

 

[timfost]

For starters, the dichotomy you give isn't correct. The question is what view of original sin we're talking about.

I learn something new every day. Thanks for your help.

Here are some quotes from Calvin's commentary on Romans 5:

Besides, we may easily conclude, that he speaks not here of actual sin; for if everyone for himself contracted guilt, why did Paul form a comparison between Adam and Christ? It then follows that our innate and hereditary depravity is what is here referred to. (v. 12)

And:

But that before the law iniquities were by God imputed to men is evident from the punishment of Cain, from the deluge by which the whole world was destroyed, from the fate of Sodom, and from the plagues inflicted on Pharaoh and Abimelech on account of Abraham, and also from the plagues brought on the Egyptians. That men also imputed sin to one another, is clear from the many complaints and expostulations by which they charged one another with iniquity, and also from the defenses by which they labored to clear themselves from accusations of doing wrong. There are indeed many examples which prove that every man was of himself conscious of what was evil and of what was good: but that for the most part they connived at their own evil deeds, so that they imputed nothing as a sin to themselves unless they were constrained. When therefore he denies that sin without the law is imputed, he speaks comparatively; for when men are not pricked by the goads of the law, they become sunk in carelessness. (v. 13)

Would this help clarify Calvin's position? I'm still fuzzy on the distinction, so I can't say for sure...

 

[TDole]

(3) Original sin both as corruption stemming from our first father and as an imputation of his sin. Imputation means to "count as" or "to be reckoned as." So this view of original sin would say that Adam's sin is counted against us as if we had done it ourselves. The guilt of Adam's sin (see WSC Q.18) is counted as our own guilt, and we can be punished for it. This view also affirms that our nature is corrupted.

View two and three are both orthodox, though the third view is what you will see in the Westminster Standards. Basil Hall is arguing that Calvin doesn't affirm view three.

Actually, while the Westminster Standards clearly teach both of these things are true, I believe they define original sin specifically as only the corruption of our nature, not the imputation of Adam's sin. Compare Shorter Catechism 18, Larger Catechism 25, and WCF 6.3-4. The larger and shorter catechism are a little ambiguous--the phrase "which is commonly called original sin" could modify all three phrases before it, or just the closest phrase "and the corruption of his whole nature." It appears the WCF clears up which is intended by using the language "all actual transgressions" (which is tied to the term original sin in LC 25) only in relation to the corruption of our nature.

Q. 18. Wherein consists the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell?
A. The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell consists in the guilt of Adam's first sin, the want of original righteousness, and the corruption of his whole nature, which is commonly called original sin; together with all actual transgressions which proceed from it.

Q. 25. Wherein consisteth the sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell?
A. The sinfulness of that estate whereinto man fell, consisteth in the guilt of Adam's first sin, the want of that righteousness wherein he was created, and the corruption of his nature, whereby he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually; which is commonly called original sin, and from which do proceed all actual transgressions.

3. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.

4. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil, do proceed all actual transgressions.

The terminology has been used both ways throughout the history of the church though, so maybe one of the Westminster Assembly experts can shed some additional light on what the divines intended.

For what it's worth, Calvin defines original sin thusly in Institutes II.1.8:

But lest the thing itself of which we speak be unknown or doubtful, it will be proper to define original sin. I have no intention, however, to discuss all the definitions which different writers have adopted, but only to adduce the one which seems to me most accordant with truth. Original sin, then, may be defined a hereditary corruption and depravity of our nature, extending to all the parts of the soul, which first makes us obnoxious to the wrath of God, and then produces in us works which in Scripture are termed works of the flesh.

And here's Hodge's description in Systematic Theology II.VIII.13

The effects of Adam’s sin upon his posterity are declared in our standards to be, (1.) The guilt of his first sin. (2.) The loss of original righteousness. (3.) The corruption of our whole nature, which (i.e., which corruption), is commonly called original sin. Commonly, but not always. Not unfrequently by original sin is meant all the subjective evil consequences of the apostasy of our first parent, and it therefore includes all three of the particulars just mentioned.

 

[MW]

The Catechisms are plain on the imputation of Adam's guilt. The Confession is sometimes obscured by the fact that lines of discussion have changed and we don't immediately pick up on the point being made. The Confession affirms the imputation of guilt but also guards this by declaring that the penal and radical consequences of sin were passed down to all the natural posterity of our first parents.

 

[Justified]

(3) Original sin both as corruption stemming from our first father and as an imputation of his sin. Imputation means to "count as" or "to be reckoned as." So this view of original sin would say that Adam's sin is counted against us as if we had done it ourselves. The guilt of Adam's sin (see WSC Q.18) is counted as our own guilt, and we can be punished for it. This view also affirms that our nature is corrupted.

View two and three are both orthodox, though the third view is what you will see in the Westminster Standards. Basil Hall is arguing that Calvin doesn't affirm view three.

Actually, while the Westminster Standards clearly teach both of these things are true

Notice my wording of view three. View three subsumes view two, yet adds imputation. So saying the Westminster affirms two and three is redundant, because I covered both imputation and corruption of the nature in view three.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Strangely enough, I thought I remember reading about Calvin saying something about the imputation of Adam's sin in his discussion of the sacraments of all places.

This is the closest thing I could find:

Institutes IV, xv, 10
From 10. Baptism, original sin, and new righteousness (Near the end of the second (last) paragraph.

“…Through baptism, believers are assured that this condemnation has been removed and withdrawn from them, since (as was said- Sec. 1, above.) the Lord promises us by this sign that full and complete remission has been made, both of the guilt that should have been imputed to us, and of the punishment that we ought to have undergone because of the guilt…”

 

[Justified]

Strangely enough, I thought I remember reading about Calvin saying something about the imputation of Adam's sin in his discussion of the sacraments of all places.

This is the closest thing I could find:

Institutes IV, xv, 10
From 10. Baptism, original sin, and new righteousness (Near the end of the second (last) paragraph.

“…Through baptism, believers are assured that this condemnation has been removed and withdrawn from them, since (as was said- Sec. 1, above.) the Lord promises us by this sign that full and complete remission has been made, both of the guilt that should have been imputed to us, and of the punishment that we ought to have undergone because of the guilt…”

Thanks Ed! Now that I look at that again it doesn't seem that Calvin is speaking about Adam's sin, but rather about the sinners sin being counted against him.