Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism

Status
Not open for further replies.
J.L. Allen

J.L. Allen

Puritan Board Sophomore
Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism

Can someone briefly explain these terms as well as their history?
 
"infralapsarianism, sublapsarianism, and supralapsarianism expressions that describe the logical order of the relationship between the decree to permit the fall of humankind into sin and the decree to elect some to eternal life. Infralapsus and sublapsus are synonyms meaning “below the fall,” whereas supralapsus means “above the fall.” In the infralapsarian/sublapsarian model, the decree to predestine some to eternal life is subsequent to or logically “below” (i.e., subordinate to) the decree to permit the fall. From this perspective, when God considers electing some to salvation he has already-fallen humankind in view. Those who are nonelect are simply passed over, that is, left in the sinful state in which they already find themselves. In the supralapsarian model the order is reversed: the decree of predestination comes logically prior to (i.e., “above”) the decree to permit the fall of humankind into sin. Thus, the decree to permit the fall serves to make predestination possible, rather than being (as in the infralapsarian/sublapsarian model) a response to a logically prior fall. Shedd, together with the Reformed tradition generally, adopts the infralapsarian/sublapsarian position. Note that a few systematicians (e.g., Chafer, Erickson) misapply the labels, wrongly assuming that infralapsarianism, sublapsarianism, and supralapsarianism refer to three different positions. In fact, the Latin prepositions infra and sub, being purely interchangeable, are used to designate the same view, against the supralapsarian model. See also decree, permissive and decree, efficient and preterition and reprobation."

Shedd, W. G. T. (2003). Dogmatic theology. (A. W. Gomes, Ed.) (3rd ed., pp. 956–957). Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Pub.
 
I may get myself into trouble by sloppy terms (and it is far more nuanced), but put simply:

Infralapsarian:
God, in his mercy, foresaw the mass of fallen humanity he had created and determined to save some.

Supralapsarian:
God, to show his glory, determined to create some men for glory and some for damnation.

Both views acknowledge election, God's eternal decrees, his mercy, etc. So while God's decrees are from eternity, the question is which logically comes first: creation or election? If creation (infralapsarian) then this tends to focus on God's mercy in redeeming some of his fallen creatures. If election (supralapsarian), then this tends to focus on God's sovereignty in being able to do whatever he pleases to bring his elect to salvation and the reprobate to damnation (even creating them for the purpose of destruction).

There are many godly and respected theologians on both sides.

Bavinck has an excellent outline here:
https://www.the-highway.com/Bavinck_predestination2.html
 
I have deleted my original comment, I see now that the term "permit" has a different meaning than the passive definition that I have grown accustom to using.
 
I found this blog to be helpful, it is obviously slightly biased. But this particular article was very good. https://supralapsarian.wordpress.co...-focus-of-the-lapsarian-discussion-should-be/
I am still very new to this subject, but I believe I have chosen a side based on logic and scripture. It is one of the only areas that I find myself in disagreement with RC Sproul.

Thank you for bringing up this subject! It is something that I hadn't really considered and after reading this post I decided to spend the entire day listening to the top minds from both sides.
 
RJ Spencer said:
I found this blog to be helpful, it is obviously slightly biased. But this particular article was very good. https://supralapsarian.wordpress.co...-focus-of-the-lapsarian-discussion-should-be/
I am still very new to this subject, but I believe I have chosen a side based on logic and scripture. It is one of the only areas that I find myself in disagreement with RC Sproul.

Thank you for bringing up this subject! It is something that I hadn't really considered and after reading this post I decided to spend the entire day listening to the top minds from both sides.
Click to expand...
An entire blog dedicated to this issue. Whoa!
 
Dachaser said:
One view is God actively determines final state, while other that God permits that outcome though, correct?
Click to expand...

How are you defining "permit?" Permitting something is not necessarily a passive activity.

From Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:

"1per•mit \pər-ˈmit\ verb
per•mit•ted; per•mit•ting [Middle English permitten, from Latin permittere to let through, permit, from per- through + mittere to let go, send] verb transitive 15th century
1: to consent to expressly or formally 〈permit access to records〉
2: to give leave: authorize
3: to make possible 〈the design permits easy access〉 verb intransitive: to give an opportunity: allow 〈if time permits〉—per•mit•tee \pər-ˌmi(t)-ˈtē, ˌpər-mi(t)-\ "

Permit is a verb which implies action. Both scenarios you laid out involves an active part on God's behalf.
 
In nearly 20 years of reading Reformed theology from the sources, I have never been able to come to a conclusion on this subject. The main reasons for my indecision are 1) there seem to be good arguments on both sides, 2) I cannot prove either position from an exegesis of scripture, nor from good and necessary consequence deductions from such exegesis, 3) the Westminster Confession leaves it an open question.

To be honest, if I have not come to a conclusion on the subject by now, I doubt that I ever will, though I remain open to persuasion.
 
Reformed Covenanter said:
In nearly 20 years of reading Reformed theology from the sources, I have never been able to come to a conclusion on this subject. The main reasons for my indecision are 1) there seem to be good arguments on both sides, 2) I cannot prove either position from an exegesis of scripture, nor from good and necessary consequence deductions from such exegesis, 3) the Westminster Confession leaves it an open question.

To be honest, if I have not come to a conclusion on the subject by now, I doubt that I ever will, though I remain open to persuasion.
Click to expand...

Go with the Synod of Dort in 1618 then and choose infra.
 
Pergamum said:
False.

The Confessions only refer to the predestination of the Elect. Reprobation or "passing by" is the proper term for the reprobate.

There is no equal ultimacy.
Click to expand...

Equal ultimacy and double predestination are not the same thing.

All reprobate (who are not elect) are predestined to reprobation. To deny this is logically meaningless.
 
Pergamum said:
False.

The Confessions only refer to the predestination of the Elect. Reprobation or "passing by" is the proper term for the reprobate.

There is no equal ultimacy.
Click to expand...
SeanPatrickCornell said:
Equal ultimacy and double predestination are not the same thing.

All reprobate (who are not elect) are predestined to reprobation. To deny this is logically meaningless.
Click to expand...
Cough Cough... https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/double-predestination/ ....cough:detective:
 
Last edited:
Grant Jones said:
Cough Cough... https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/double-predestination/ ....cough:detective:
Click to expand...

The WCF 3.7 "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."


Show me one instance of the confessions speaking of the predestination to hell of any man.

It is always framed in the form of "passing by" or "withholding mercy."
 
Pergamum said:
The WCF 3.7 "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."


Show me one instance of the confessions speaking of the predestination to hell of any man.

It is always framed in the form of "passing by" or "withholding mercy."
Click to expand...
Perg,

Did you read the full Sproul, SR. article? He lays it out much more thoroughly than the majority of Ligoner articles. You and Sean are likely in agreement and are just using different terms. According to Sproul, SR., historically the reformed have been fine using the phrase Double Predestination.

In the the world of the Young, Restless, and Deformed :stirpot::D) the topic likely needs qualification. Sproul, SR. gives the needed qualifications.:detective:

P.S. In case you do not read it all, here is a quote:

"
The Reformed View of Predestination

In sharp contrast to the caricature of double predestination seen in the positive-positive schema is the classic position of Reformed theology on predestination. In this view predestination is double in that it involves both election and reprobation but is not symmetrical with respect to the mode of divine activity. A strict parallelism of operation is denied. Rather we view predestination in terms of a positive-negative relationship."

and

"
The Reformed Confessions

By a brief reconnaissance of Reformed confessions and by a brief roll-call of the theologians of the Reformed faith, we can readily see that double predestination has been consistently maintained along the lines of a positive-negative schema.

The Reformed Confession: 1536

Our salvation is from God, but from ourselves there is nothing but sin and damnation. (Art. 9)

French Confession of Faith: 1559

We believe that from this corruption and general condemnation in which all men are plunged, God, according to his eternal and immutable counsel, calleth those whom he hath chosen by his goodness and mercy alone in our Lord Jesus Christ, without consideration of their works, to display in them the riches of his mercy; leaving the rest in this same corruption and condemnation to show in them his justice. (Art. XII)

The Belgic Confession of Faith: 1561

We believe that all the posterity of Adam, being thus fallen into perdition and ruin by the sin of our first parents, God then did manifest himself such as he is; that is to say, MERCIFUL AND JUST: MERCIFUL, since he delivers and preserves from this perdition all whom he, in his eternal and unchangeable council, of mere goodness hath elected in Christ Jesus our Lord, without respect to their works: JUST, in leaving others in the fall and perdition wherein they have involved themselves. (Art. XVI)

The Second Helvetic Confession: 1566

Finally, as often as God in Scripture is said or seems to do something evil, it is not thereby said that man does not do evil, but that God permits it and does not prevent it, according to his just judgment, who could prevent it if he wished, or because he turns man’s evil into good… . St. Augustine writes in his Enchiridion: “What happens contrary to his will occurs, in a wonderful and ineffable way, not apart from his will. For it would not happen if he did not allow it. And yet he does not allow it unwillingly but willingly.” (Art. VIII)

The Westminster Confession of Faith: 1643

As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected … are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

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 dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice. (Chap. III-Art. VI and VII)

These examples selected from confessional formulas of the Reformation indicate the care with which the doctrine of double predestination has been treated. The asymmetrical expression of the “double” aspect has been clearly maintained. This is in keeping with the care exhibited consistently throughout the history of the Church. The same kind of careful delineation can be seen in Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Zanchius, Turrettini, Edwards, Hodge, Warfield, Bavinck, Berkouwer, et al"
 
Last edited:
Personally, I think that the discussion is trying to build an order that, despite the best efforts of the practitioners of the theories to make it only logical, inevitably makes it temporal in language. There can be no temporal order in a decree made in eternity. I believe that every part of the decree was fashioned with a complete mesh to every other part of the decree, which was always made. God saw all the inter-relations and fashioned every part of the decree with a view to how it would affect every other part of the decree. He also saw how the decree would work itself out and redound to His own glory.

The fact of the matter is that the discussion often runs the danger of inquiring into something which has not been revealed to us. The secret decree of God is secret, and it is secret for a reason: we cannot understand it, and we would distort it if we knew any of it. I have always been uncomfortable with the entire discussion for these reasons.
 
Grant Jones said:
Perg,

Did you read the full Sproul, SR. article? He lays it out much more thoroughly than the majority of Ligoner articles. You and Sean are likely in agreement and are just using different terms. According to Sproul, SR., historically the reformed have been fine using the phrase Double Predestination.

In the the world of the Young, Restless, and Deformed :stirpot::D) the topic likely needs qualification. Sproul, SR. gives the needed qualifications.:detective:

P.S. In case you do not read it all, here is a quote:

"
The Reformed View of Predestination

In sharp contrast to the caricature of double predestination seen in the positive-positive schema is the classic position of Reformed theology on predestination. In this view predestination is double in that it involves both election and reprobation but is not symmetrical with respect to the mode of divine activity. A strict parallelism of operation is denied. Rather we view predestination in terms of a positive-negative relationship."

and

"
The Reformed Confessions

By a brief reconnaissance of Reformed confessions and by a brief roll-call of the theologians of the Reformed faith, we can readily see that double predestination has been consistently maintained along the lines of a positive-negative schema.

The Reformed Confession: 1536

Our salvation is from God, but from ourselves there is nothing but sin and damnation. (Art. 9)

French Confession of Faith: 1559

We believe that from this corruption and general condemnation in which all men are plunged, God, according to his eternal and immutable counsel, calleth those whom he hath chosen by his goodness and mercy alone in our Lord Jesus Christ, without consideration of their works, to display in them the riches of his mercy; leaving the rest in this same corruption and condemnation to show in them his justice. (Art. XII)

The Belgic Confession of Faith: 1561

We believe that all the posterity of Adam, being thus fallen into perdition and ruin by the sin of our first parents, God then did manifest himself such as he is; that is to say, MERCIFUL AND JUST: MERCIFUL, since he delivers and preserves from this perdition all whom he, in his eternal and unchangeable council, of mere goodness hath elected in Christ Jesus our Lord, without respect to their works: JUST, in leaving others in the fall and perdition wherein they have involved themselves. (Art. XVI)

The Second Helvetic Confession: 1566

Finally, as often as God in Scripture is said or seems to do something evil, it is not thereby said that man does not do evil, but that God permits it and does not prevent it, according to his just judgment, who could prevent it if he wished, or because he turns man’s evil into good… . St. Augustine writes in his Enchiridion: “What happens contrary to his will occurs, in a wonderful and ineffable way, not apart from his will. For it would not happen if he did not allow it. And yet he does not allow it unwillingly but willingly.” (Art. VIII)

The Westminster Confession of Faith: 1643

As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected … are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

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 dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice. (Chap. III-Art. VI and VII)

These examples selected from confessional formulas of the Reformation indicate the care with which the doctrine of double predestination has been treated. The asymmetrical expression of the “double” aspect has been clearly maintained. This is in keeping with the care exhibited consistently throughout the history of the Church. The same kind of careful delineation can be seen in Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Zanchius, Turrettini, Edwards, Hodge, Warfield, Bavinck, Berkouwer, et al"
Click to expand...

Thorough summary. Thanks. I am ok with the terminology as long as we stress the "asymmetrical" aspect. That is my chief concern.
 
Pergamum said:
Thorough summary. Thanks. I am ok with the terminology as long as we stress the "asymmetrical" aspect. That is my chief concern.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. That's why I made it clear earlier to distinguish between equal ultimacy and double predestination.

I am in agreement with you that equal ultimacy is not right.
 
Pergamum said:
Go with the Synod of Dort in 1618 then and choose infra.
Click to expand...

The assumption that the Canons of Dort requires infralapsarianism or precludes supralapsarianism seems to lack historical perspective. It seems similar to the assumption that the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession excludes Hypothetical Universalism (of the non-Amyraldian variety).

For one thing, the Canons were endorsed by supralapsarians such as Francis Gomarus. Also, it is unlikely that they intended to rule the views of men like William Perkins et al. out of bounds, as Dort was meant to be broad enough to unite those who were generally orthodox, despite some minor differences, in opposition to the Remonstrant Arminians.

Even if other confessions require infralapsarianism, I prefer to stick with the Westminster Standards, which are the most careful and circumspect expression of Reformed orthodoxy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top