Infralapsarianism
and Supralapsarianism by
Jack
Kettler
In this study, we
will seek to understand infralapsarianism
and supralapsarianism. This is a
study in Reformed theology. This study will
deal with God’s eternal decrees
involving predestination. Christians that
are not reformed also have theologies
that attempt to understand God’s eternal
degrees. The serious reader should
consult the Cannons of Dort to see two
competing systems in contrast.
The doctrine of
predestination
more than any other teaching of Scripture
takes salvation out of man's hands
and places it in God's control. The cause of
God's choosing or election is
found in God Himself. If a man insists that
he played a part in God's choice,
then human merit is brought into the
picture. Salvation then becomes
synergistic (a cooperative effort) rather
than monergistic (God alone saves
apart from man’s effort). Biblical salvation
is monergistic. Christ alone, by
his complete and finished work saves a
fallen man. Within a synergistic scheme,
salvation becomes a mutual effort.
The words
predestination and election appear in the
pages of Scripture. A Christian,
therefore, must have an understanding of
passages that teach this. This study
of infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism
will seek to clarify and help us
better understand the doctrine of grace seen
in God’s election of sinners. The
goal of this study is to glorify God.
Therefore, we must start with
the Scripture:
“My name is the LORD!
I won't let idols or humans share my glory
and praise.” (Isaiah 42:8 CEV)
“Then shall the King
say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye
blessed of my Father, inherit the
kingdom prepared for you from the foundation
of the world.” (Matthew 25:34)
“Moreover, whom he
did predestinate, them he also called: and
whom he called, them he also
justified: and whom he justified, them he
also glorified.” (Romans 8:30)
“According as he hath
chosen us in him before the foundation of
the world, that we should be holy and
without blame before him in love.”
(Ephesians 1:4)
“But we are bound to
give thanks always to God for you, brethren
beloved of the Lord, because God
hath from the beginning chosen you to
salvation through sanctification of the
Spirit and belief of the truth.” (2
Thessalonians 2:13)
“Shew me thy ways, O
LORD; teach me thy paths.” (Psalm 25:4)
Definitions from two sources:
Infralapsarianism:
The view that in the
plan made by God in eternity, his decree to
permit the fall logically preceded
his decree of election, so that when God
chose some people to receive eternal
life, he was choosing them from the whole
mass of humanity, all regarded as
fallen creatures. *
Infralapsarianism:
An issue within
Reformed theology dealing with what may have
happened in God's mind regarding
the logical order of His considering whom to
elect into salvation before the
foundation of the world. The word means
"after the fall." The
position is that God first decided he would
allow sin into the world and second
that he would then save people from it. By
contrast, the supralapsarian
("before the fall") position holds that God
first decided that he
would save some people and then second that
he would allow sin into the world.
**
Supralapsarianism:
The view that in the
plan made by God in eternity, his decree of
election logically preceded his
decree to permit the fall, so that when God
chose “some to receive eternal life
and rejected all others,” he was
contemplating them as unfallen. *
Supralapsarianism:
An issue within
Reformed theology dealing with what may have
happened in God's mind regarding
the logical order of His considering whom to
elect into salvation before the
foundation of the world. The word means
"before the fall." This
position holds that God first decided that
he would save some people and then
second that he would allow sin into the
world. By contrast, the infralapsarian
("after the fall") position is the reverse
in that it holds that God
first decided he would allow sin into the
world and second that he would then
save people from it. **
Scripture in support of
infralapsarianism:
“If ye were of the
world, the world would love his own: but
because ye are not of the world, but I
have chosen you out of the world, therefore
the world hateth you.” (John 15:19)
It will be good to look at John
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
on John 15:19:
“If ye were of the world
... Belonged to the world, were of the same
spirit and principles with it, and
pursued the same practices:
the world would love
its own; for every like loves it’s like; the
men of the world love each other's
persons, company, and conversation:
but because ye are
not of the world: once they were, being born
into it, brought up in it, had
their conversation among the men of it, were
themselves men of carnal, worldly,
principles and practices; but being called
by Christ, and becoming his
disciples, they were no more of it; and as
he was not of the world, so they
were not of it, though they were in it. The
Jews distinguish the disciples of
the wise men, from , "the men of the world"
(u), pretending that they
were not; but this is a character that only
belongs to the disciples of Christ,
in consequence of their being called by him
out of it:
but I have chosen you
out of the world: which designs not the
eternal election of them, but the
separation of them from the rest of the
world in the effectual calling, and the
designation of them to his work and service:
therefore the world
hateth you; and since it was upon that
account, they had no reason to be uneasy,
but rather to rejoice; seeing this was an
evidence of their not belonging to
the world, and of being chosen and called by
Christ out of it.” (1)
The next passage:
“According as he hath
chosen us in him before the foundation of
the world, that we should be holy and
without blame before him in love: Having
predestinated us unto the adoption of
children by Jesus Christ to himself,
according to the good pleasure of his
will, To the praise of the glory of his
grace, wherein he hath made us accepted
in the beloved.” (Ephesians 1:4-6)
Barnes' Notes on the
Bible on Ephesians 1:5 is
particularly helpful:
Having predestinated
us - On the meaning of the word here used,
see the notes at Romans 1:4, Romans 8:29
note. The word used πρωρίζω
prōrizō
means properly “to set bounds before;” and
then to “pre-determine.” There is
the essential idea of setting bounds or
limits, and of doing this beforehand.
It is not that God determined to do it when
it was actually done, but that he
intended to do it beforehand. No language
could express this more clearly, and
I suppose this interpretation is generally
admitted. Even by those who deny the
doctrine of particular election, it is not
denied that the word here used means
to “pre-determine;” and they maintain that
the sense is, that God had
pre-determined to admit the Gentiles to the
privileges of his people. Admitting
then that the meaning is to predestinate in
the proper sense, the only question
is, “who” are predestinated? To whom does
the expression apply? Is it to
nations or to individuals? In reply to this,
in addition to the remarks already
made, I would observe,
(1) that there is no
specification of “nations” here as such, no
mention of the Gentiles in
contradistinction from the Jews.
(2) those referred to
were those included in the word “us,” among
whom Paul was one - but Paul was
not a heathen.
(3) the same
objection will lie against the doctrine of
predestinating “nations” which will
lie against predestinating “individuals.”
(4) nations are made
up of individuals, and the pre-determination
must have had some reference to
individuals.
What is a nation but
a collection of individuals? There is no
such abstract being or thing as a
nation; and if there was any purpose in
regard to a nation, it must have had
some reference to the individuals composing
it. He that would act on the ocean,
must act on the drops of water that make up
the ocean; for besides the
collection of drops of water there is no
ocean. He that would remove a
mountain, must act on the particles of
matter that compose that mountain; for
there is no such thing as an abstract
mountain. Perhaps there was never a
greater illusion than to suppose that all
difficulty is removed in regard to
the doctrine of election and predestination,
by saying that it refers to “nations.”
What difficulty is lessened? What is gained
by it? How does it make God appear
more amiable and good?
Does it render him
less “partial” to suppose that he has made a
difference among nations, than to
suppose that he has made a difference among
individuals? Does it remove any
difficulty about the offer of salvation, to
suppose that he has granted the
knowledge of his truth to some "nations,"
and withheld it from
others? The truth is, that all the reasoning
which has been founded on this
supposition, has been merely throwing dust
in the eyes. If there is
"any" well-founded objection to the doctrine
of decrees or
predestination, it is to the doctrine "at
all," alike in regard to
nations and individuals, and there are just
the same difficulties in the one
case as in the other. But there is no real
difficulty in either. Who could
worship or honor a God who had no plan, or
purpose, or intention in what he
did? Who can believe that the universe was
formed and is governed without design?
Who can doubt that what God "does" he always
meant to do?
When, therefore, he
converts and saves a soul, it is clear that
he always intended to do it. He has
no new plan. It is not an afterthought. It
is not the work of chance. If I can
find out anything that God has “done,” I
have the most certain conviction that
he “always meant” to do it - and this is all
that is intended by the doctrine
of election or predestination. What God
does, he always meant to do. What he
permits, he always meant to permit. I may
add further, that if it is right to “do”
it, it was right to “intend” to do it. If
there is no injustice or partiality
in the act itself, there is no injustice or
partiality in the intention to
perform it. If it is right to save a soul,
it was also right to intend to save
it. If it is right to condemn a sinner to
we, it was right to intend to do it.
Let us then look “at the thing itself,” and
if that is not wrong, we should not
blame the purpose to do it, however long it
has been cherished.
Unto the adoption ...
- see John 1:12 note, Romans 8:15 note.
According to the good
pleasure of his will - The word rendered
“good pleasure” - (εὐδοκίαeudokia) - means “a being well
pleased;” delight in anything,
favor, good-will, Luke 2:14; Philippians
1:15; compare Luke 12:32. Then it
denotes purpose, or will, the idea of
benevolence being included - Robinson.
Rosenmuller renders the phrase, “from his
most benignant decree.” The evident
object of the apostle is to state why God
chose the heirs of salvation. It was
done as it seemed good to him in the
circumstances of the case. It was not that
man had any control over him, or that man
was consulted in the determination,
or that it was based on the good works of
man, real or foreseen. But we are not
to suppose that there were no good reasons
for what he has thus done. Convicts
are frequently pardoned by an executive. He
does it according to his own will,
or as seems good in his sight.
He is to be the
judge, and no one has a right to control him
in doing it. It may see M to be
entirely arbitrary. The executive may not
have communicated the reasons why he
did it, either to those who are pardoned, or
to the other prisoners, or to
anyone else. But we are not to infer that
there was no “reason” for doing it.
If he is a wise magistrate, and worthy of
his station, it is to be presumed
that there were reasons which, if known,
would be satisfactory to all. But
those reasons he is under no obligations to
make known. Indeed, it might be
improper that they should be known. Of that
he is the best judge. Meantime,
however, we may see what would be the effect
in those who were not forgiven. It
would excite, very likely, their hatred, and
they would charge him with
partiality or with tyranny. But they should
remember that whoever might be
pardoned, and on whatever ground it might be
done, they could not complain.
They would suffer no
more than they deserve. But what if, when
the act of pardon was made known to
one part, it was offered to the others also
on certain plain and easy
conditions? Suppose it should appear that
while the executive meant, for wise
but concealed reasons, to forgive a part, he
had also determined to offer
forgiveness to all. And suppose that they
were in fact disposed in the highest
degree to neglect it, and that no
inducements or arguments could prevail on
them to accept of it. Who then could blame
the executive? Now this is about the
case in regard to God, and the doctrine of
election. All people were guilty and
condemned. For wise reasons, which God has
not communicated to us, he
determined to bring a portion at least of
the human race to salvation. This he
did not intend to leave to chance and
hap-hazard. He saw that all would of
themselves reject the offer, and that unless
some efficient means were used,
the blood of the atonement would be shed in
vain.
He did not make known
to people who they were that he meant to
save, nor the reason why they
particularly were to be brought to heaven.
Meantime he meant to make the offer
universal; to make the terms as easy as
possible, and thus to take away every
ground of complaint. If people will not
accept of pardon; if they prefer their
sins; if nothing can induce them to come and
be saved, why should they
complain? If the doors of a prison are open,
and the chains of the prisoners
are knocked off, and they will not come out,
why should they complain that
others are in fact willing to come out and
be saved? Let it be borne in mind
that the purposes of God correspond exactly
to facts as they actually occur,
and much of the difficulty is taken away. If
in the facts there is no just
ground of complaint, there can be none,
because it was the intention of God
that the facts should be so. (2)
Scriptures in support of
supralapsarianism:
“For the scripture
saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same
purpose have I raised thee up, that I
might shew my power in thee, and that my
name might be declared throughout all
the earth. Thou wilt say then unto me, why
doth he yet find fault? For who hath
resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art
thou that repliest against God?
Shall the thing formed say to him that
formed it, why hast thou made me thus? Hath
not the potter power over the clay, of the
same lump to make one vessel unto
honour, and another unto dishonour?” (Romans
9:17, 19-21)
Matthew Poole's
Commentary sums up Paul’s
argument in Romans perfectly:
“He argueth from the
less to the greater, that if a potter hath
power over his clay, to form it as
he pleaseth, then God hath much more power
over his creatures, to form them or
order them as he listeth. God’s authority
over his creature, is greater than
that of a potter over his clay. The potter
made not his clay; but both clay and
potter are made by God. Here is something
implied, that as there is no
difference in the matter or lump out of
which the potter frameth diversity of
vessels, so there is no difference in
mankind; all men are alike by nature, and
in the same corrupt state; both those who
are elected, and those who are
rejected, that are made vessels of mercy, or
vessels of wrath. And here is this
expressed, that as the potter maketh vessels
of honour or dishonour, of nobler
or viler use, out of the same lump, as he
listeth, and is not bound to give a
reason of his so doing to his pots; so God
may choose some, and reject others,
and give no account thereof unto his
creatures. The potter takes nothing from
the clay, of what form soever he makes it;
and the Creator doth no wrong to the
creature, however he doth dispose of it.” (3)
Loraine Boettner onINFRALAPSARIANISM
AND
SUPRALAPSARIANISM:
Among those who call
themselves Calvinists there has been some
difference of opinion as to the order
of events in the Divine plan. The question
here is, when the decrees of
election and reprobation came into existence
were men considered as fallen or
as unfallen? Were the objects of these
decrees contemplated as members of a
sinful, corrupt mass, or were they
contemplated merely as men whom God would
create?
According to the
infralapsarian view
the order of events was as follows: God
proposed,
1.to create;
2.to permit the fall;
3.to elect to eternal
life and blessedness a great multitude out
of this mass of fallen men, and to
leave the others, as He left the Devil and
the fallen angels, to suffer the
just punishment of their sins;
4.to give His Son,
Jesus Christ, for the redemption of the
elect; and
5.to send the Holy
Spirit to apply to the elect the redemption
which was purchased by Christ.
According to the
supralapsarian view
the order of events was:
1.to elect some
creatable men (that is, men who were to be
created) to life and to condemn
others to destruction;
2.to create;
3.to permit the fall;
4.to send Christ to
redeem the elect; and
5.to send the Holy
Spirit to apply this redemption to the elect
The question then is as to whether
election precedes or follows the fall.
One of the leading
motives in the supralapsarian scheme is to
emphasize the idea of discrimination
and to push this idea into the whole of
God’s dealings with men. We believe,
however, that supralapsarianism
over-emphasizes this idea. In the very
nature
of the case this idea cannot be consistently
carried out, e.g., in creation,
and especially in the fall. It was not
merely some of the members of the human
race who were objects of the decree to
create, but all mankind, and that with
the same nature. And it was not merely some
men, but the entire race, which was
permitted to fall. Supralapsarianism goes to
as great an extreme on the one
side as does universalism on the other. Only
the infralapsarian scheme is
self-consistent or consistent with other
facts.
In regard to this
difference Dr. Warfield writes: “The mere
putting of the question seems to
carry its answer with it. For the actual
dealing with men which is in question,
is, with respect to both classes alike,
those who are elected and those who are
passed by, conditioned on sin; we cannot
speak of salvation any more than of
reprobation without positing sin. Sin is
necessarily precedent in thought, not
indeed to the abstract idea of
discrimination, but to the concrete instance
of
discrimination which is in question, a
discrimination with regard to a destiny
which involves either salvation or
punishment. There must be sin in
contemplation to ground a decree of
salvation, as truly as a decree of
punishment.
We cannot speak of a decree discriminating
between men with reference to
salvation and punishment, therefore, without
positing the contemplation of men
as sinners as its logical prius.”1
And to the same effect Dr.
Charles
Hodge says:
“It is a clearly
revealed Scriptural principle that where
there is no sin there is no
condemnation. . . . He hath mercy upon one
and not on another, according to His
own good pleasure, because all are equally
unworthy and guilty . . .
Everywhere, as in Romans 1:24, 26, 28,
reprobation is declared to be judicial,
founded upon the sinfulness of its object.
Otherwise, it could not be a
manifestation of the justice of God.” 2
It is not in harmony
with the Scripture ideas of God that
innocent men, men who are not contemplated
as sinners, should be foreordained to
eternal misery and death. The decrees
concerning the saved ‘and the lost should
not be looked upon as based merely on
abstract sovereignty. God is truly
sovereign, but this sovereignty is not
exercised in an arbitrary way. Rather it is
a sovereignty exercised in harmony
with His other attributes, especially His
justice, holiness, and wisdom. God
cannot commit sin; and in that respect He is
limited, although it would be more
accurate to speak of His inability to commit
sin as a perfection. There is, of
course, mystery in connection with either
system; but the supralapsarian system
seems to pass beyond mystery and into
contradiction.
The Scriptures are
practically infralapsarian, — Christians are
said to have been chosen “out of”
the world, John 15:19; the potter has a
right over the clay, “from the same
lump,” to make one part a vessel unto honor,
and another unto dishonor, Rom.
9:21; and the elect and the non-elect are
regarded as being originally in a
common state of misery. Suffering and death
are uniformly represented as the
wages of sin. The infralapsarian scheme
naturally commends itself to our ideas
of justice and mercy; and it is at least
free from the Arminian objection that
God simply creates some men in order to damn
them. Augustine and the great
majority of those who have held the doctrine
of Election since that time have
been and are infralapsarians, — that is,
they believe that it was from the mass
of fallen men that some were elected to
eternal life while others were
sentenced to eternal death for their sins.
There is no Reformed confession
which teaches the supralapsarian view; but
on the other hand a considerable
number do explicitly teach the
infralapsarian view, which thus emerges as
the
typical form of Calvinism. At the present
day it is probably safe to say that
not more than one Calvinist in a hundred
holds the supralapsarian view. We are
Calvinists strongly enough, but not “high
Calvinists.” By a “high Calvinist” we
mean one who holds the supralapsarian view.
It is of course true
that in either system the sovereign choice
of God in election is stressed and
salvation in its whole course is the work of
God. Opponents usually stress the
supralapsarian system since it is the one
which without explanation is more
likely to conflict with man’s natural
feelings and impressions. It is also true
that there are some things here which cannot
be put into the time mould, — that
these events are not in the Divine mind as
they are in ours, by a succession of
acts, one after another, but that by one
single act God has at once ordained
all these things. In the Divine mind the
plan is a unit, each part of which is
designed with reference to a state of facts
which God intended should result
from the other parts. All of the decrees are
eternal. They have a logical, but
not a chronological, relationship. Yet in
order for us to reason intelligently
about them we must have a certain order of
thought. We very naturally think of
the gift of Christ in sanctification and
glorification as following the decrees
of the creation and the fall.
In regard to the teaching of
the
Westminster Confession, Dr. Charles Hodge
makes the following comment:
“Twiss, the
Prolocutor of that venerable body (the
Westminster Assembly), was a zealous
supralapsarian; the great majority of its
members, however, were on the other
side. The symbols of that Assembly, while
they clearly imply the infralapsarian
view, were yet so framed as to avoid offence
to those who adopted the supralapsarian
theory. In the ‘Westminster Confession,’ it
is said that God appointed the
elect unto eternal life, and the rest of
mankind, God was pleased, according to
the unsearchable counsel of His own will,
whereby He extendeth or withholdeth
mercy as He pleaseth, for the glory of His
sovereign power over His creatures,
to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor
and wrath for their sin, to the
praise of His glorious justice.’ It is here
taught that those whom God passes
by are ‘the rest of mankind’; not the rest
of ideal or possible men, but the
rest of those human beings who constitute
mankind, or the human race. In the
second place, the passage quoted teaches
that the non-elect are passed by and
ordained to wrath ‘for their sin.’ This
implies that they were contemplated as
sinful before this foreordination to
judgment. The infralapsarian view is still
more obviously assumed in the answer to the
19th and 20th questions in the
‘Shorter Catechism.’ It is there taught that
all mankind by the fall lost
communion with God, and are under His wrath
and curse, and that God out of His
mere good pleasure elected some (some of
those under His wrath and curse), unto
everlasting life. Such has been the doctrine
of the great body of Augustinians
from the time of Augustine to the present
day.” 3
Notes referenced in
the article:
1.The Plan of
Salvation, p. 28.
2.Systematic Theology,
II, p. 318.
3.Systematic Theology,
II, p. 317. (4)
Conclusions from the Evangelical
Dictionary of Theology
published by Baker:
Infralapsarianism,
(Sublapsarianism)
(Lat. for “after the
fall,” sometimes designated
“sublapsarianism”). A part of the doctrine
of
predestination, specifically that which
relates to the decrees of election and
reprobation. The issues involved are God's
eternal decrees and man's will, how
can the one be affirmed without denying the
other. If one argues for God's
predetermination of mankind's fate, this
tends to deny mankind's free will and
threatens to make God responsible for sin.
On the other hand, if
one argues for the freedom of mankind's
will, thus making man responsible for
sin, this can threaten the sovereignty and
power of God since his decrees then
are contingent upon mankind's decisions. The
argument / dilemma is not new.
Pelagius and Augustine argued over the issue
with the Synod of Orange, 529,
which sided with Augustine. In the Middle
Ages, Duns Scotus and William of
Ockham questioned Augustine's position.
Luther and Erasmus argued the issue in
Freedom of the Will and Bondage of the Will.
Melanchthon got involved and was
accused by Flacius of synergism, and by the
end of the sixteenth century the
position of Arminius stirred the controversy
among the Reformed, who attempted
to resolve the issue at the Synod of Dort.
What is the order of
the eternal decrees of God? Infralapsarians
argue for this order:
(1) God decreed the creation of
mankind, a
good, blessed creation, not marred or
flawed.
(2) God decreed mankind would be
allowed to
fall through its own self determination.
(3) God decreed to save some of the
fallen.
(4) God decreed to leave the rest to
their
just fate of condemnation.
(5) God provides the Redeemer for the
saved.
(6) God sends the Holy Spirit to
effect
redemption among the saved.
The key to the order
of the decrees is that God decreed election
to salvation after the fall, not
before; hence the name of the view
"infralapsarianism." The
supralapsarian view would offer an order in
which the decree for election and
reprobation occurs before the creation.
Those on both sides of the issue cite
weighty arguments for their positions, quote
Scripture as a foundation, and
comb through Augustine, Calvin, and others
for support. Generally most Reformed
assemblies have refused to make either infra
- or supralapsarianism normative,
although the tendency has been to favor the
former without condemning those who
hold to the latter.
R V Schnucker
(Elwell Evangelical
Dictionary) (5)
Supralapsarianism
The doctrine that God
decreed both election and reprobation before
the fall. Supralapsarianism
differs from infralapsarianism on the
relation of God's decree to human sin.
The differences go back to the conflict
between Augustine and Pelagius. Before
the Reformation, the main difference was
whether Adam's fall was included in
God's eternal decree; supralapsarians held
that it was, but infralapsarians
acknowledged only God's foreknowledge of
sin. Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin were
agreed that Adam's fall was somehow included
in God's decree; it came to be
referred to as a “permissive decree,” and
all insisted that God was in no way
the author of sin. As a result of the
Reformers' agreement, after the
Reformation the distinction between infra -
and supralapsarianism shifted to
differences on the logical order of God's
decrees.
Theodore Beza,
Calvin's successor at Geneva, was the first
to develop supralapsarianism in
this new sense. By the time of the Synod of
Dort in 1618 - 19, a heated
intraconfessional
controversy developed between infra - and
supralapsarians; both positions were
represented at the synod. Francis Gomarus,
the chief opponent of James
Arminius, was a supralapsarian.
The question of the
logical, not the temporal, order of the
eternal decrees reflected differences
on God's ultimate goal in predestination and
on the specific objects of
predestination. Supralapsarians considered
God's ultimate goal to be his own
glory in election and reprobation, while
infralapsarians considered
predestination subordinate to other goals.
The object of predestination,
according to supralapsarians, was uncreated
and unfallen humanity, while
infralapsarians viewed the object as created
and fallen humanity.
The term
“supralapsarianism”
comes from the Latin words supra
and lapsus;
the decree of predestination was
considered to be “above” (supra)
or
logically “before” the decree concerning the
fall (lapsus), while the
infralapsarians viewed it as “below” (infra)
or logically “after” the decree
concerning the fall. The contrast of the two
views is evident from the
following summaries.
The logical order of
the decrees in the supralapsarian scheme is:
(1) God's decree to glorify himself
through
the election of some and the reprobation of
others;
(2) as a means to that goal, the
decree to
create those elected and reprobated;
(3) the decree to permit the fall;
and
(4) the decree to provide salvation
for the
elect through Jesus Christ.
The logical order of
the decrees according to infralapsarians is:
(1) God's decree to glorify himself
through
the creation of the human race;
(2) the decree to permit the fall;
(3) the decree to elect some of the
fallen
race to salvation and to pass by the others
and condemn them for their sin; and
(4) the decree to provide salvation
for the
elect through Jesus Christ.
Infralapsarians were
in the majority at the Synod of Dort. The
Arminians tried to depict all the
Calvinists as representatives of the
“repulsive” supralapsarian doctrine. Four
attempts were made at Dort to condemn the
supralapsarian view, but the efforts
were unsuccessful. Although the Canons of
Dort do not deal with the order of
the divine decrees, they are infralapsarian
in the sense that the elect are “chosen
from the whole human race, which had fallen
through their own fault from their
primitive state of rectitude into sin and
destruction” (I, 7; cf. I, 1). The
reprobate "are passed by in the eternal
decree" and God "decreed
to leave (them) in the common misery into
which they have willfully plunged
themselves" and "to condemn and punish them
forever...for all their
sins" (I, 15).
Defenders of
supralapsarianism continued after Dort. The
chairman of the Westminister
Assembly, William Twisse, was a
supralapsarian but the Westminister
standards
do not favor either position. Although
supralapsarianism never received
confessional endorsement within the Reformed
churches, it has been tolerated
within the confessional boundaries. In 1905
the Reformed churches of the
Netherlands and the Christian Reformed
Church in 1908 adopted the Conclusions
of Utrecht, which stated that "our
Confessional Standards admittedly
follow the infralapsarian presentation in
respect to the doctrine of election,
but that it is evident...that this in no
wise intended to exclude or condemn
the supralapsarian presentation." Recent
defenders of the supralapsarian
position have been Gerhardus Vos, Herman
Hoeksema, and G H Kersten.
F H Klooster
(Elwell Evangelical
Dictionary) (6)
In
closing:
From The Westminster Shorter
Catechism:
Q. 19. What is the
misery of that estate whereinto man fell?
A.
All mankind by their fall lost communion
with God, are under his wrath and curse, and
so made liable to all the miseries
of this life, to death itself, and to the
pains of hell forever.
Q. 20. Did God leave
all mankind to perish in the estate of sin
and misery?
A. God, having out of
his mere good pleasure, from all eternity,
elected some to everlasting life,
did enter into a covenant of grace to
deliver them out of the estate of sin and
misery, and to bring them into an estate of
salvation by a Redeemer.
“Blessed art thou, O
LORD: teach me thy statutes.” (Psalm 119:12)
“Study to shew
thyself approved unto God, a workman that
needeth not to be ashamed, rightly
dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy
2:15)
Notes:
1.John
Gill, Exposition
of the Old and New Testaments,
John, 9 Volumes, Romans, (Grace Works,
Multi-Media Labs), 2011, p. 504.
2.Albert
Barnes, THE AGES DIGITAL LIBRARYCOMMENTARY,
Barnes’
Notes
on the Bible, Ephesians, pp. 3354-3356
.
3.Matthew
Poole, Matthew
Poole's Commentary on the
Holy Bible, Romans, vol. 3, (Peabody,
Massachusetts, Hendrickson
Publishers, 1985), p. 511.
4.Loraine
Boettner, The
Reformed Doctrine of
Predestination, (Phillipsburg, New
Jersey, Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing CO. signed copy 1984), pp.
126-130.
5.Walter
A. Elwell, Editor, Evangelical
Dictionary
of Theology, (Grand Rapids, Michigan,
Baker Book House), p. 560-561.
6.Walter
A. Elwell, Editor, Evangelical
Dictionary
of Theology, (Grand Rapids, Michigan,
Baker Book House), p. 1059-1060.
“To God, only wise,
be glory through Jesus Christ forever.
Amen.” (Romans 16:27) and “heirs
according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:28,
29)
Mr. Kettler has
previously published articles in the Chalcedon
Report and Contra
Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend
the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr.
Kettler is the author of the book defending
the Reformed Faith against attacks,
titled: The Religion That Started in
a Hat. Available at:
www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com