Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism

[Pergamum]

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.

Party Pooper!

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Party Pooper!

"Everything I do seems to hurt people." Charlie Sheen

 

[J.L. Allen]

There's some really good material here. Thank you for the responses. I feel conflicted, but I also realize, as it has been pointed out, it is a matter that can be held loosely in order to have peace about it. A lot of it is speculative. I believe, at first glance, my inclination is to lean supralapsarian. However, I'm not committed to these things and ultimately understand God to be sovereign and to elect His people.

 

[Dachaser]

There's some really good material here. Thank you for the responses. I feel conflicted, but I also realize, as it has been pointed out, it is a matter that can be held loosely in order to have peace about it. A lot of it is speculative. I believe, at first glance, my inclination is to lean supralapsarian. However, I'm not committed to these things and ultimately understand God to be sovereign and to elect His people.

The main Confessions support the other position, but both are viable per the scriptures.

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

Dabney's conclusion:

"In my opinion, this is a question which never ought to have been raised. Both schemes are illogical and contradictory to the true state of facts. But the Sublapsarian is far more Scriptural in its tendencies, and its general spirit far more honorable to God. The Supralapsarian, under a pretense of greater symmetry, is, in reality, the more illogical of the two, and misrepresents the divine character and the facts of Scripture in a repulsive manner. The view from which it starts, that the ultimate end must be first in design, and then the intermediate means, is of force only with reference to a finite mind. God's decree has no succession; and to Him no successive order of parts; because it is a contemporaneous unit, comprehended altogether, by one infinite intuition. In this thing, the statements of both parties are untrue to God's thought. The true statement of the matter is, that in this co-etaneous, unit plan, one part of the plan is devised by God with reference to a state of facts which He intended to result from another part of the plan; but all parts equally present, and all equally primary to His mind. As to the decree to create man, to permit his fall, to elect some to life; neither part preceded any other part with God. But His purpose to elect had reference to a state of facts which was to result from His purpose to create, and permit the fall. It does not seem to me that the Sublapsarian scheme makes the decree conditional. True, one result decreed is dependent on another result decreed; but this is totally another thing. No scheme can avoid this, not even the Supralapsarian, unless it does away with all agency except God's, and makes Him the direct author of sin." - R. L. Dabney. Syllabus and Notes of the Course of Systematic and Polemic Theology Taught In Union Theological Seminary, Virginia.

 

[Grant]

A review of reformed confessions regarding the OP from:
https://reformedbooksonline.com/infralapsarianism-supralapsarianism/#confessions

Reformed Confessions

B.B. Warfield, ‘Predestination in the Reformed Confessions’ 1901

4. It is, however, of more immediate interest to observe the attitude of the Reformed Confessions with respect to the object of Predestination. Here we are met by a greater apparent diversity than obtains in the other matters that have attracted our attention.

Of the three great parties that grew up among the Reformed with reference to the object of predestination (in the sense of Soteriological Predestination) – the Supralapsarian, Infralapsarian, and Salmurian, conceiving the object of predestination respectively as unfallen, fallen, and redeemed mankind – the first and third receive no support from the Confessions.

Yet all the Confessions are not Infralapsarian: nor is their attitude precisely the same towards Supralapsarianism and Salmurianism. Some of them are explicitly Infralapsarian, and none exclude, much less polemically oppose, Infralapsarianism. None of them are explicitly Supralapsarian: many, however, leave the question between Supra- and Infralapsarianism entirely to one side, and thus open the way equally to both; and none are polemically directed against Supralapsarianism.

Not only are none explicitly Salmurian, on the other hand, but those prepared after the rise of Salmurianism firmly close the door to it, while earlier ones certainly do not open it, and leave room for it, if at all, only uncertainly and by doubtful inference from chance expressions which have no direct reference to the point in controversy and are flexible to other constructions.

The explicitly Infralapsarian Confessions include [8]:

the Genevan Consent (1552), the Hungarian Confession (1557), that of the English Exiles at Geneva (1558), the Gallican (1559) and Belgic (1561) Confessions, the Canons of Dort (1618) and the Swiss Form of Consent (1675), together with the Articles framed at the Leipzig Colloquy (1631).

These explicitly declare that the discrimination which God made among men was made in massa corrupta: it is for them certain that it was out of the lost race of man that God chose some to eternal life, leaving the rest to the just recompense of their sins.

By their side we may perhaps place some others, such as [8]:

the Genevan Confession of 1537 and the creeds prepared by Calvin for the Genevan Students (1559), the Church at Paris (1557) and the French Churches (1562), the Confession of Sigismund (1614) and the Declaration of Thorn (1645), and perhaps also, though with less confidence, the Second Helvetic Confession (1562) and the Heidelberg Catechism (1563),

as Confessions which, while not clearly implying Infralapsarianism, yet seem more or less to speak out of an underlying but not expressed Infralapsarian consciousness: this is, however, a matter of mere tone and manner, and is of course much too subtle to insist upon.

In such formularies, on the other hand, as [8]:

Zwingli’s “Fidei ratio” (1530), the First Basle or Mühlhausen Confession (1534), the Genevan Catechism (1545), the Zurich Consent (1549), the English (1553), Lambeth (1595) and Irish (1615) Articles, and the Scotch Confession (1560),

the lines are so drawn that it is impossible to discover that there is advantage given to either party to the debate over the other: in the case of the Westminster Confession, which shares this peculiarity with them, we know that this was the result of a settled policy, and it may have been the same in some of the others also (as in Calvin’s Articles, in view of Beza’s views known to him, and in the Lambeth and Irish Articles).

In view of these facts, it is hardly possible to speak of the Reformed creeds at large as distinctly Infralapsarian, though Dr. Schaff’s language affirming that “all the Reformed Confessions . . . keep within the limits of infralapsarianism,” may, so far, be adopted as well-chosen and expressive of the true state of the case.

Some Reformed Confessions explicitly define Infralapsarianism: none assert anything which is not consonant with Infralapsarianism. On the other hand, nothing is affirmed in the majority of the Confessions inconsistent with Supralapsarianism either; and this majority includes several of the most widely accepted documents.

The Westminster Confession in its careful avoidance of raising the distinction throws itself, therefore, into a class with the majority of its companion Confessions, inclusive of the Heidelberg Catechism and the Second Helvetic Confession, which are certainly the most widely accepted of Continental formularies, and of the entire British tradition.

It is a noteworthy fact that it is particularly the Genevan creeds and those formed under the Genevan influence which are explicitly Infralapsarian; while it is along the line of German Reformed and British influence that the distinction is avoided, or at least not adverted to. This is probably in part due to the prosecution of the debate between the parties, with most vigor among the French-speaking Calvinists and in Holland.

But the effect is to throw the Westminster Confession at this point into companionship with the documents which have been often treated as presenting the “milder” Calvinism, but which would certainly be more properly described as at this point setting forth rather a more generic Calvinism.

 

[Pergamum]

I would never want to say that God decreed to allow folks to be damned prior to his decree to create, lest we conclude He created some merely to be damned. Thus I put the decree to create and allow the Fall prior to the decree to elect some and pass by others. This is why I am infra.

 

[Nate]

Go with the Synod of Dort in 1618 then and choose infra.

For those who subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity, the Conclusions of Utrecht are helpful on this topic:

The Conclusions of Synod Utrecht (1905)
A. Infra- or Supralapsarianism

In regard to the first point, infra- or supralapsarianism, Synod declares:

that our Confessional Standards admittedly follow the infralapsarian presentation in respect to the doctrine of election, but that it is evident both from the wording of Chapter I, Article 7, of the Canons of Dort and from the deliberations of the Synod of Dort, that this is in no wise intended to exclude or condemn the supralapsarian presentation;

that it is hence not permitted to present the supralapsarian view as the doctrine of the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands, but neither, to molest anyone who personally holds the supralapsarian view inasmuch as the Synod of Dort has made no pronouncement upon this disputed point.

Furthermore, Synod adds the warning that such profound doctrines, which are far beyond the understanding of the common people, should be discussed as little as possible from the pulpit, and that one should adhere in the preaching of the Word and in catechetical instruction to the presentation offered in our Confessional Standards.

https://rscottclark.org/2012/09/the-conclusions-of-synod-utrecht-1905/

 

[Pergamum]

For those who subscribe to the Three Forms of Unity, the Conclusions of Utrecht are helpful on this topic:




https://rscottclark.org/2012/09/the-conclusions-of-synod-utrecht-1905/

"...should be discussed as little as possible from the pulpit..." Wow. That is surprising (but wise, I suppose).

 

[Grant]

A’ Brakel - Reprobation Defined; A Christian’s Reasonable Service

Reprobation Defined
The other element of predestination is reprobation, to which reference is made in a variety of ways, such as “to be
cast away.” “I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away” (Isa 41:9); to be fitted to destruction (Rom 9:22); to be appointed unto wrath (1 Thess 5:9); to be ordained unto condemnation (Jude 4); and not to be written in the book of life (Rev 13:8). These texts prove at once that there is such a thing as reprobation.
We define reprobation to be the predestination of some specific individuals, identified by name, out of sovereign good pleasure to the manifestation of God‟s justice in them by punishing them for their sins.
(1) Just as we have shown and shall further prove that election pertains to specific individuals, so this is likewise applicable to reprobation. “... whose names were not written in the book of life” (Rev 17:8). Christ said to specific individuals, “Ye are not of My sheep” (John 10:26). They are designated by the relative pronoun “who.” “For there are certain men ... who were before of old ordained to this condemnation” (Jude 4). This is the reason why some are specifically called by name, such as Esau (Rom 9:17), Pharaoh (Rom 9:17), and Judas Iscariot (Acts 1:25). The number of reprobates far exceeds the number of elect, who in contrast to them—even of those that are called—are referred to as “few” (Matt 20:16).
(2) Reprobation proceeds solely from God‟s good pleasure. Although the ungodliness of the reprobates is the cause of their damnation, this nevertheless was not the reason why God, to the glory of His justice, was moved to decree their reprobation. It purely proceeds from the good pleasure of God who has the right and the power to do as He pleases with His own. Thus, no one is permitted to say, “Why hast Thou made me thus?” (Rom 9:22). According to His good pleasure He conceals the way of salvation (Matt 11:25-26); “He hath mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth” (Rom 9:22). His purpose stands firm. This is confirmed in Rom 9:11 where it is stated, “for the children being not yet born, neither having done good or evil.” It is therefore according to God‟s sovereignty and good pleasure to manifest His justice towards some and His grace to others (Rom 9:22-23). God shall maintain His holiness and justice. Believers know that God is just and righteous in all His doings. Let him who wishes to strive with God concerning this do so. (3) As the decree itself is a manifestation of the sovereignty of God, its purpose is the manifestation of God‟s justice which reveals itself in the execution of this decree. He who decrees the end simultaneously decrees the means unto this end. Sin is the only reason that God has decreed to damn specific individuals. God permits them by their own volition to turn from Him and to enslave themselves to sin. They, having sinned, become subject to the curse threatened upon sin. God, while delivering others from sin and its curse by means of the Surety Jesus Christ, bypasses them, and therefore they neither hear God nor believe in Him. “Ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God” (John 8:47); “But ye believe not, because ye are not of My sheep” (John 10:26). As a righteous Judge God punishes them due to their sin in “the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God” (Rom 2:5). Thus, God shows His wrath over “vessels of wrath fitted to destruction” (Rom 9:22). Up to this point we have explained this doctrine; however, this doctrine has many opponents, such as Roman Catholics (although not exclusively so), Arminians, Lutherans, and others.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

In theological writings, sometimes terms like double predestination are used or else election and reprobation are spoken of as two aspects of predestination. I do not believe that it is theologically wrong to do so. However, Perg is correct to draw attention to the fact that the confessions do not commit us to this language. The Westminster Confession speaks of election in terms of predestination and reprobation in terms of foreordination.

Westminster Confession, Chapter 3

3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others fore-ordained to everlasting death.

4. These angels and men, thus predestinated and fore-ordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it can not be either increased or diminished. ...

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 dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.

 

[Dachaser]

In theological writings, sometimes terms like double predestination are used or else election and reprobation are spoken of as two aspects of predestination. I do not believe that it is theologically wrong to do so. However, Perg is correct to draw attention to the fact that the confessions do not commit us to this language. The Westminster Confession speaks of election in terms of predestination and reprobation in terms of foreordination.

Westminster Confession, Chapter 3

3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others fore-ordained to everlasting death.

4. These angels and men, thus predestinated and fore-ordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it can not be either increased or diminished. ...

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 dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.

He had ordained their final state due to their rejection of Jesus, but not directly causing them to reject Him.

 

[Ed Walsh]

He had ordained their final state due to their rejection of Jesus, but not directly causing them to reject Him.

The confession in the place you quoted says nothing about the sin of rejecting Jesus, but "to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin." Many have been condemned for their sin that never heard of Jesus.

 

[Steve Curtis]

The confession in the place you quoted

Ed, Daniel - not David - quoted the Confession. Just wanted to clear up any confusion in your (quite accurate) response.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

He had ordained their final state due to their rejection of Jesus, but not directly causing them to reject Him.

I suspect that what you are trying to say is that God is not the author of sin. Everyone here grants that point, but, to echo what Ed said, many of the reprobates never heard of Jesus the Messiah, so your conclusion does not follow. The reason they are reprobated or passed by is because of God's sovereign will. The reason that they are damned is owing to their sin.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Ed, Daniel - not David - quoted the Confession. Just wanted to clear up any confusion in your (quite accurate) response.

How's this for confusing? I was referring to David's requoting of Daniel's quote of the Confession which I did not include when I quoted David.
Thus the Smiley-face here and in your post above. @Reformed Covenanter

EDIT: Now that I think about it I guess you are right in the main. So I am removing the smiley in your post. And the beat goes on...

 

[Nate]

I would never want to say that God decreed to allow folks to be damned prior to his decree to create, lest we conclude He created some merely to be damned. Thus I put the decree to create and allow the Fall prior to the decree to elect some and pass by others. This is why I am infra.

In reading William Young (from Reformed Thought) on the topic, it seems he attempted to clarify that both the Supra folks and the Infra folks agree with your point. Young uses a few quotes from the famous Supra William Twisse to make this point. Young wrote

All supralapsarians from Beza, and most emphatically Twisse, have maintained not merely that actual condemnation follows sin in time, but that it is for sin that God has decreed to condemn them.

He quotes Twisse in The Riches of God's Love unto the Vessels of Mercy, Consistent with His Absolute Hatred or Reprobation of the Vessels of Wrath

not one of our divines that I know, doth maintain that God did ever purpose to inflict damnation, but for sin.

and

So that like as God doth not intend the creatures creation, before he intends his damnation, in the same respect he cannot be said to intend his damnation, before he intends his creation, or the permission of his sinne.

Young concluded that

Since the 'infra' agrees that the distinction of the elect and reprobate was not due to their works but to the good pleasure of the sovereign will of God, and the 'supra' agrees that in the case of the reprobate the object of the decree was condemnation for their sins, Twisse is justified in his conclusion that there is no substantial diferrence between them, but simply a point of logic or apex logicus.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Greetings,

I thought this was worth mentioning.​

There is but One Decree of God.​

Although I consider myself a Supralapsarian (I hope in the best Twisseian tradition), I always remember what Berkhoff and others have said about the singularity of God's decree. So I don't obsess about the logical order of His Decree(s)
​

THE WORKS OF GOD

THE DIVINE DECREES IN GENERAL​

A. The Nature of the Divine Decrees. The decree of God is His eternal plan or purpose, in which He has foreordained all things that come to pass. It is but natural that God, who controls all things, should have a definite plan according to which He works, not only in creation and providence, but also in the process of redemption. This plan includes many particulars, and therefore we often speak of the divine decrees in the plural, though in reality there is but a single decree. For the material contents of His decree God drew on the boundless knowledge which He has of all kinds of possible things. Of this great store of possibilities He embodied in His decree only those things which actually come to pass. Their inclusion in the decree does not necessarily mean that He Himself will actively bring them into existence, but means in some cases that, with the divine permission and according to the divine plan, they will certainly be brought to realization by His rational creatures. The decree covers all the works of God in creation and redemption, and also embraces the actions of His free moral beings, not excluding their sinful actions. But while the entrance of sin into the world and its various manifestations in the lives of angels and men were thus rendered certain, this does not mean that God decided to effectuate these Himself. God’s decree with reference to sin is a permissive decree.

Berkhof, L. (1933). Manual of Christian Doctrine (p. 84). Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

 

[Dachaser]

I suspect that what you are trying to say is that God is not the author of sin. Everyone here grants that point, but, to echo what Ed said, many of the reprobates never heard of Jesus the Messiah, so your conclusion does not follow. The reason they are reprobated or passed by is because of God's sovereign will. The reason that they are damned is owing to their sin.

Didn't John state though that the light has now come to all, and yet those who reject Jesus do that due to loving darkness ?

 

[Dachaser]

I suspect that what you are trying to say is that God is not the author of sin. Everyone here grants that point, but, to echo what Ed said, many of the reprobates never heard of Jesus the Messiah, so your conclusion does not follow. The reason they are reprobated or passed by is because of God's sovereign will. The reason that they are damned is owing to their sin.

Which would be their rejection of Jesus as Lord

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Didn't John state though that the light has now come to all, and yet those who reject Jesus do that due to loving darkness?

Yes, he did, but what has that point got to do with your earlier assertion?

Which would be their rejection of Jesus as Lord

I am not sure what it is that you are trying to say in this post. Not everyone who will be damned for their sin got to hear the gospel, so they did not overtly reject Jesus as Lord. They will be judged for violating the law of nature, not for rejecting the gospel, which they never heard in order to reject.

 

[Dachaser]

Yes, he did, but what has that point got to do with your earlier assertion?



I am not sure what it is that you are trying to say in this post. Not everyone who will be damned for their sin got to hear the gospel, so they did not overtly reject Jesus as Lord. They will be judged for violating the law of nature, not for rejecting the gospel, which they never heard in order to reject.

My point was simply that per Paul in Romans, all sinners will be aware God exists, and that the truth of there being a Messiah has come into the world, and men judged for willfully rejecting that light.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

My point was simply that per Paul in Romans, all sinners will be aware God exists, and that the truth of there being a Messiah has come into the world, and men judged for willfully rejecting that light.

They are aware of the first point by the light of nature, but they can only be aware of the second point by the light of special revelation. Those who do not have access to the gospel do not know that the Messiah has come into the world. If they did, then all missionary endeavour would be useless as the pagans would have had the gospel preached to them through nature.

 

[Dachaser]

They are aware of the first point by the light of nature, but they can only be aware of the second point by the light of special revelation. Those who do not have access to the gospel do not know that the Messiah has come into the world. If they did, then all missionary endeavour would be useless as the pagans would have had the gospel preached to them through nature.

good point, as all of us are already condemned in Adam as part of original Sin, and that works itself out in willful rejection of Jesus to save them from their sins when witnesses to about Him.