Points in Favor of Supralapsarianism, part 2

Read with Ephesians 1:3-14 in mind

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guaranteed of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

Point 4: Reprobation would appear to be before the decree of creation based on facts such as this: There are others "whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world" (Rev. 17:8).

Point 5: The Fall can't be in view before election because some elect have never fallen: The elect angels never fell (1 Tim. 5:21). This may serve to answer something brought up in a previous comment, namely that election is unto salvation, and non-sinners don’t need saving. At first blush, this sounds like a strong argument. However, I am not sure that I can fully grant the premise that election is unto salvation, or at least, salvation from sin. Unto what are the elect angels elected? It certainly cannot be said to be salvation from sin, since their election carries with it the not falling into sin. So perhaps we could say that election is unto glory in Christ, who is the first and true Elect, into whom all the other elect are counted.

Point 6: Infralapsarianism seems to imply that all men were originally fit for dishonor (Rom. 9:21). Scripture clearly teaches in Romans 9 that some are vessels of wrath fit for dishonor, while the elect are vessels of mercy. There seems to be no hint that the elect and the reprobate were first lumped together and then separated into the two categories of "vessels of mercy" and "vessels of wrath."

Point 7: The means serves the ends: If God first determined to create men, next permitted their fall, then out of the fallen mass to choose some to salvation, did He not purpose to do all this without any end in view? The ends proposed by Scripture is that God wished to do all for His own glory. He is glorified in the display of His mercy and His justice. This is another place where the question of conception versus historical execution comes in. 

Point 8: God views His elect as glorified, the Fall being the means.

In closing out this series, let me reiterate: Both the Infralapsarian and Supralapsarian positions teach the eternality of God's decrees. The issue is only the logical, not the temporal, order of those decrees in God's mind. That is why one must be careful to not draw too deep a line in the sand. The mind of God is immeasurably and infinitely above and beyond the human mind. We must always remember that God's mind and counsel are one and indivisible, therefore using our human (and therefore fallen) forms of reasoning may quickly lead us into unwarranted speculations far outside the scope of revealed truth. The preceding posts have merely been my attempt to profit by marveling at the wisdom of God, not an attempt to draw any hard and fast rules whereby anyone's Christian profession is assessed or judged.

Points in Favor of Supralapsarianism, part 1

Read with Ephesians 1:3-14 in mind

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guaranteed of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

Point 1: Spiritual blessing of the Elect were purposed BEFORE the foundation of the world. In other words, before He even willed the creation of the world in which He willed the Fall. (Eph. 1:3-4) Follow the logic of the passage: Before the foundation of the world there were already spiritual blessings purposed for the elect. This means that creation and the Fall which occurred therein, are, in order of logic, under, the decree of Predestination. 

Point 2: The elect were viewed in Christ before they were viewed as sinners or even as created. (Eph. 1:4) This passage takes us to a ‘time’ before time existed, i.e., before Creation, and it tells us that the elect were, even then, viewed by God as in Christ, before they were created and subsequently viewed as fallen sinners. We have touched on this issue already several posts ago, where we discussed the fact that in any logical arrangement, the first thing conceived of is the final, i.e., ultimate, purpose.

You will remember that I made reference to the work of the classical guitarist Elliot Fisk. His ultimate goal was to record his performance of Paganini’s 24 Caprices on guitar. Along the way he invented new techniques for performing and transcribing. The invention of techniques, useful as it was, was not his ultimate goal. It was merely a means to his end, which was the recording of the Caprices on guitar. 

I’m not asserting anything unfamiliar to any of us. All we have to do is consult our own experience to know this to be true. The million dollar question then is: What is/was God’s ultimate end? Our passage, and many others, tells us that it was the praise of His glory, or as our Children’s Catechism says, “For His own glory.” God decreed to glorify Himself. That is the ultimate purpose behind everything. Predestination sets up the parameters of said glorification: glorification of His mercy and righteousness. Creation and the Fall are subservient means.

Point 3: This point doesn't actually come from the above passage (Eph 1). This is based upon Paul’s comparison between Adam and Christ as the federal heads of all those who are counted in them. All humanity is counted as in Adam, hence all sinned and fell in his sin and Fall. All the elect are elected in Christ, i.e., they are in Him. He is their covenant Head. Paul compares Adam and Christ in 1 Corinthians 15:22-49 and Romans 5:12-21. There is an important truth taught in this passage, which has already been laid out in the preceding sentences. Christ stands for the Elect in the same way that Adam stands for all men. In Adam’s sin and misery, all humanity is counted as guilty sinners. In Christ’s righteousness, all the Elect are counted as righteous. 

If this analogy holds, it would seem to me then that if the first Adam's bride was given to him before the Fall, the same must be true of the Second Adam. We have an example in the creation of Eve and the giving of her to Adam in the union of marriage. As Adam saw her, loved her in the sight, and took her unto himself as his bride. In the same way, the Church was given to Christ in a marriage covenant from eternity. As Eve was given to Adam before the Fall, so the church was given to Christ in the mind of God before the fall, indeed, before any regard to sin. 

William Perkins' "Golden Chain" Ordo Salutis (Order of Salvation) Chart

This is the Ordo Salutis chart from William Perkins' book A Golden Chain. This is a very good representation of the Supralapsarian position. Kudos to whomever redesigned this chart from its original form in Perkins' book. The original was hopelessly confusing. This has been extremely well done.

(Double-clicking on the image will magnify it to a size big enough to read in detail.)

Supralapsarianism - Common Objections 7

Hyper-Calvinism:

As this series unfolds I plan to make several positive arguments in favor of Supralapsarianism. But one more thing needs to be said before we get there. Supralapsarianism is frequently accused of being hyper-Calvinism. This is a very problematic accusation to begin with. First of all, Supralapsarianism specific defined view. It is a view that is and has been seen as acceptable within the pale of historic Calvinism, clearly seen by the proceedings of the Synod of Dort. The term hyper-Calvinism means different things to different people. It is always used in a pejorative sense. I frequently joke that hyper-Calvinists are like the Sasquatch of Reformed theology: there are constant sightings of them, yet no one has ever captured one. It is an unhelpful term because it only means what the user wants it to mean. For that reason, I will not entertain any discussion on the subject of hyper-Calvinism. It is a meaningless term which can only unfold into a meaningless and pointless discussion.

From this point on, we will deal only in positive arguments based on Scripture, Ephesians 1:3-14 in particular.

Supralapsarianism - Common Objections 6

Before we move on, there are three passages of Scripture which I want to cite which clearly demonstrate God’s dealing with his creatures out of pure sovereignty rather than justice. There are obviously many more, but these three will suffice for our purposes. The first of these passages is:

Matthew 11:23 – “And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.”

This passage clearly teaches that God is sovereign over reprobation in an active sense, not merely in a passive sense. Jesus specifically says that the miracles which were done in Capernaum would have been sufficient to bring repentance to Sodom, at least enough repentance to keep them from being destroyed when they were. And yet these miracles were purposely withheld. Draw your own conclusions from that.

The 2^nd passage is the Parable of the Vineyard Workers, found in Matthew 20:1-16. Rather than reproduce the entire passage here, let me simply refer to the section of it which is relevant to our discussion. You’ll remember that in the parable workers were hired at several different times throughout the day and that they were all hired for the same amount. The climax of the parable is the section which is relevant to our discussion. When quitting time came and the men were going to be paid for their labor, the men who had worked a mere hour were paid the same amount as those who had worked all day. Naturally the men who had busted their humps all day in the sun complained. I have no doubt but that anyone who reads this parable sees the inherent “unfairness” of this arrangement. But notice what the vineyard owner says. Rather, notice what he does not say. The owner the vineyard does not say, “You are absolutely right. It is completely unfair of me to pay you the same amount for 10 times more work than these other bums did who came along later in the day. I’m glad you pointed out to me the inherent unfairness of this arrangement.” The owner of the property in fact says, “Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as much as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?” Notice that the principle upon which the landlord works (the principle which verse 1 tells us is a principal of the kingdom of heaven), is sovereignty over his property, not any notion of justice as construed by his workers.

The 3^rd passage is the lesson of the fig tree in Mark 11:12-14, 20. In what from a fallen human perspective must be viewed as an incredible act of unfairness, Jesus curses a fig tree for having no fruit, which would not be unusual in itself, except that figs were not in season. This demonstrates sovereignty in a way that beggars description. If it had been fig season we would not be surprised if someone were angry with a tree for having no fruit, although we might be surprised if they cursed the tree because of that. But here we find Jesus, the creator of the universe who must therefore be aware of when one can and cannot find fruit on a tree. And yet operating on a principle of pure sovereignty, Jesus pronounces a damning curse on a tree which has no fruit out of season.

Supralapsarianism - Common Objections 5

The logical consistency of Supralapsarianism does a far superior job in handling the question of sin and evil with regard to the divine decrees than Infralapsarianism does. This is why I said earlier that the Infralapsarian objection that Supralapsarianism makes God the author of sin, is an unfair argument at the very least. I only bring that up again here, after having already dealt with that objection, because it appears to me that Infralapsarianism confuses logical conception or logical order with historical execution, as I’ve already said. This means that it is contrary to fact and that it creates confusion in the divine decrees, at least some of them, by leaving the purpose of unspecified until the next decree. This would appear to deny God’s rationality by making the Divine decree be purely arbitrary, without any reason.

In any logical arrangement the first thing conceived of is the final purpose. Every step along the way is made in order to accomplish what comes before. This would of course mean that the decree which concerns the creation of man would have to be preceded by a decree that requires the creation of man in order to accomplish the ultimate goal while still representing man is a “possibility.” Therefore it seems to be a rather weak argument when it is said that Supralapsarianism is illogical because it makes the decree of election and reprobation refer to nonentities, bare possibilities in the mind of God, who do not as yet in fact exist.

One final consideration is the decree of Predestination as it regards the angels. The Supralapsarian view is the only adequate explanation for predestination as it regards the angels. The entire body of angels consists of 2 categories: the fallen and the unfallen. Scripture refers to the unfallen angels as “the elect angels” {τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν ἀγγ έλων} (1 Tim. 5:21), by which language a specific body of chosen individuals is denominated. This language is identical to that used with reference to the human individuals which God has chosen as a specific body, i.e., the Church, which he has chosen in His Son. It is therefore obvious that Supralapsarianism is the only adequate explanation for predestination as it regards the angels, because those among them who are designated “elect,” were not chosen out of a mass of fallen individuals. The angels who were termed “elect,” were decreed to be so without any consideration of a fall. None of the fallen angels are elect. Scripture gives is no reason to think that the decree of predestination which encompasses the election and reprobation of angels is to be considered in any different manner from the decree of predestination which encompasses the election and reprobation of men. The decree of predestination with regard to the angels makes it very clear, even without the biblical commentary which Romans 9 gives us with regard to human election, that predestination unto election or reprobation is not, and should not be considered, a matter of Divine Justice, but rather a matter of Divine Sovereignty.

Before we continue, I’d like to tie up would seems to me to be one remaining loose end. I have already repeatedly asserted that predestination, which I use as an umbrella term for both election and reprobation, is an act of God’s sovereignty, not his justice. I have also already affirmed repeatedly that the primary weakness of Infralapsarianism, as far as I can see, is that it confuses logical conception with historical execution. I repeat all of this now because Calvinism in general, and Supralapsarianism specifically, is frequently impugned as if it held that God created some creatures, i.e., some men, merely to damn them. Before I reply to this issue, I’d like to say that I find it a tad amusing since Scripture does indeed have statements such as, “prepared for destruction” (Rom. 9:22), “The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble” (Prov. 16:4), “They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do” (1 Peter 2:8).

But let’s return to the matter at hand. This accusation, viz., that God intentionally created some men purely to damn them, misses the point entirely. God’s ultimate aim in predestination, which includes election and reprobation, is not primarily the salvation of the elect, nor the damnation of the reprobate. God’s ultimate aim is his own glory. God has decreed to glorify himself in mercy and retributive justice: mercy to the vessels of mercy, and retributive justice to the vessels of wrath. Neither the salvation of the elect nor the damnation of the reprobate is God’s primary our ultimate aim in the decree of predestination. The ultimate aim is His own glory.

But I can already hear someone objecting, “I thought you said that predestination was an act of sovereignty not of justice.” But now you are saying that God has decreed to glorify himself in retribution justice upon the vessels of wrath. Again, this objection is guilty of confusing logical conception with historical execution. The Supralapsarian position affirms that Creation and the Fall were decreed by God as the means of executing His decree of predestination. It is important to keep reminding ourselves that what we are considering is the logical conception, not the historical execution.

This is why I brought up the subject of predestination as it regards the elect angels at a point which seems perhaps out of sequence. I wanted to have that idea in place already in order to respond to this criticism. Someone may be tempted to distance the predestination of angels from the decree of predestination of men. But notice what Scripture says, “Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?” (Hebrews 1:14). This means that the decree of Predestination (comprised of election and reprobation) as regards angels is subservient to the decree of Predestination with regard to man. Angels were created before man, but this is because they were created for the purpose of serving the elect. The Greek text explicitly says, “all angels” (πάντες). I take this to mean literally, all angels – good and bad. Lest someone object at my including bad angels in the “all,” let me remind you of the following Scriptures:

Exodus 9:16 (cited in Romans 9:17) - But for this purpose I have raised you up, to show you my power, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.

Isaiah 44:28-45:1 who says of Cyrus, ‘He is my shepherd, and he shall fulfill all my purpose’; saying of Jerusalem, ‘She shall be built,’ and of the temple, ‘Your foundation shall be laid.’” "This is what the LORD says to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of to subdue nations before him and to strip kings of their armor, to open doors before him so that gates will not be shut:…”

Isaiah 10:5-6 - Ah, Assyria, the rod of my anger; the staff in their hands is my fury! Against a godless nation I send him, and against the people of my wrath I command him, to take spoil and seize plunder, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets…

Notice that in all three of these passages God is specifically using evil enemies for the benefit of His people. Not only are these enemies of God simply used by God for the benefit of his people, but the Scriptures explicitly declare that the reason for both their actual existence and their attainment of military strength was by God’s design and was for the benefit of his covenant people. God used Pharaoh to glorify himself in the eyes of his covenant people. God used Assyria as a rod to discipline a wayward and unfaithful covenant people. God used Cyrus as an instrument of showing God’s graciousness to his people by turning his heart to let the captives of Judah return home and rebuild the temple.

On the strength of that observation, I am completely comfortable in asserting that the “all,” of Hebrews 1:14 refers literally to all angels, good and bad. This means that not only does reprobation, as it regards man, serve the elect, but so does the predestination of angels, which includes both their election and reprobation. You’ll remember, of course, that we demonstrated that the decree of predestination as regards the angels must be viewed in a Supralapsarian way because no fall is in view with regard to the elect of their number. The elect of their number were never subject to a fall and no means of salvation was provided for those who did fall. It would seem very unusual, not to say illogical, if the entire scheme of predestination were to be viewed along the lines of Infralapsarianism, while the decree of predestination with regard to the angels, which is entirely subservient to the decree of predestination with regard to Christ and his church, must be construed along the lines of Supralapsarianism.

Supralapsarianism - Common Objections 4

The 4^th is that it is illogical because it conceives of a decree made in reference to nonentities.

4 This is another argument which appears more like a parlor trick than an actual, reasonable objection. I cannot see how it even rises to the level of an objection. In the common experience of all of us this exact thing happens all the time and the objector seems to be blissfully unaware of that fact. I will supply a few examples to prove this point.

I don’t mind saying that at my wedding I was very sharply dressed. I had planned to be sharply dressed and had already envisioned what I was going to wear. My very decision to wear that particular set of clothes is the reason why I bought it. So the above objection seems very weak and contrary to common fact.

The classical guitarist, Elliot Fisk, desired to perform Paganini’s 24 Caprices on guitar. When he originally planned the project, there were no known guitar techniques which would allow some of Paganini’s violin work to be played on guitar. Fisk set out to develop, or, invent, such techniques. After he successfully created the hitherto un-invented guitar techniques, he then transcribed the Caprices, and eventually recorded them. (Don’t ask how I know this; I am a metalhead, so it wouldn’t make sense.) Fisk’s ultimate design was not to create new guitar techniques or to transcribe violin music for guitar; those were merely the means necessary for the attainment of his ultimate goal. Plato said, “Necessity is the mother of invention.” We all know that the history of civilization proves this daily.

So, I find the Infralapsarian objection that Supralapsarianism entails making a decree regarding nonexistent entities more than a little unimpressive. For the life of me, I cannot see how it is a meaningful objection at all.

Supralapsarianism - Common Objections 3B

One further clarification should be made in this regard. It is often stated that Infralapsarianism views election as unconditional, but reprobation as conditional. In other words, it is said that the elect were not chosen in foresight of any good that they would do. To say so would be the rankest Pelagianism anyway. All this notwithstanding, it is frequently asserted that reprobation on the other hand is based upon foresight of sin. In fairness to my Infralapsarian friends, I must reject this position as a false representation of what Infralapsarianism teaches. Supralapsarianism and classical Infralapsarianism have always held that predestination, which is the umbrella term which includes both election and reprobation, is unconditional. Neither foresight of faith nor foresight of sin is taken into account as a condition upon which God’s choosing or rejecting of anyone is based.

Not that long ago, I posted a short piece by William Twisse on why Reprobation is not conditional. In that post, Twisse gives six reasons. At this juncture in our discussion, I would like to recap those reasons. In doing so I will modify his language in order to make myself more clearly understood. Nevertheless, the argument is essentially his.

1. Something eternal cannot be caused by something temporal. I hope after reading that we can all say, “Duh!” in unison. But of course we might wonder what this has to do with our subject. The answer to that is easy. God is eternal, hence His decree is eternal. No temporal thing could cause an eternal decision because the decision eternally existed before the temporal thing it relates to existed. The sins of men are temporal. Reprobation, being part of God’s decree of predestination, is eternal. For this reason, the sins of man cannot be the cause of reprobation.  Romans 9:11 affirms as much by telling us that neither God’s loving of Jacob, nor his hatred of Esau, was based on anything they had done because God had revealed his purpose of election before either of them was born and could have done anything good or evil.

2. If the permission of sin precedes damnation in the intention of the divine decree, then it would follow that permission of sin should be last in execution. But this is absurd. This would mean that man was damned first and then permitted to sin.

3. There is no cause of God’s essence. Reprobation, as it signifies God’s decree, is the act of God’s will. The act of God’s will is the very will of God, and the will of God is God’s essence. Since there can be no cause of God’s essence, there can be no cause of God’s will, or the act thereof.

4. Saying that foreseen sin is the cause of God’s decree of damnation presupposes a foreknowledge of sin as something future, without any logical grounds. The only way anything can be foreseen as future is if it truly is future. Foreseen sin being the cause of God’s decree of reprobation presupposes a futurition of sin from eternity, a presupposition without any logical ground. No sin is future in its own nature. In its own nature it is merely possible and indifferent – it may or may not become future. It cannot pass out of the realm of possibility into the realm of the future without a cause. What cause can be given for the futurition of sin? Apart from God nothing could be the cause because this passage of things out of the realm of possibilities into the realm of things future must have been from everlasting. This must be the case because Scripture tells us that God knows all things from everlasting. Consequently, the cause of this passage from possibility to futurity must be acknowledged to have been from everlasting, and consequently nothing without God could be the cause of it, seeing nothing without God was from everlasting. This means that the cause must be found within God. But what within God could be the cause? It could be the will of God, but that is precisely what the adherents of reprobation upon foresight of sin disclaim. It could also be the knowledge of God. However, knowledge is what presupposes something to be future rather than what makes it so. Or it could be the essence of God. Now the essence of God can be considered as working one of two ways, viz., necessarily or freely. To say that the essence of God causes things to become future by necessity of nature is not only ridiculous, but blasphemous as well. To say that the essence of God works freely is to grant that the will of God is the cause why everything merely possible in its own nature passes from everlasting into the condition of a future thing, if indeed it is a future thing at all. The only cause therefore, why a thing passes from the realm of possibility into the realm of future is because of the free will of God. Consequently, the reason why everything becomes future is because God has determined that it shall come to pass. Twisse makes only this distinction: “all good things God hath determined shall come to pass by His election, all evil things God has determined shall come to pass by His permission.”

5. If sin be the cause of Reprobation, that is, of the decree of damnation, then it must be so either by necessity of nature, or by the constitution of God. No one has ever held that it was by necessity of nature.  But neither could we say that it is by the free constitution of God, for this would drive us to an utterly ridiculous position. We would be forced to say that God ordained that upon foresight of sin, He would ordain them to damnation. In other words, we would be forced to affirm that God ordained that He would ordain – that He decreed that He would decree! We all know that the objects of God’s decree can only be temporal things and not eternal things. We all acknowledge that God decreed to create the world, to preserve the world, to redeem us, call us, to justify us, to sanctify us, and to glorify us. But it cannot be truly said that God did decree to decree, or ordain to ordain. Decreeing is an act of God’s will and therefore it cannot be the object of the act of God’s will. As strong as that argument is, it is still weak in comparison to Paul’s statement in Romans 9:11, “Before the children were born or had done good or evil, it was said, ’the elder shall serve the younger.’” This means that the purpose of God concerning reprobation does not stand on works. Since all Reformed folk are agreed that this passage teaches that election does not stand upon good works, why should we not infer from here that reprobation does not stand upon evil works?

6. If foreseen sin is the meritorious cause of reprobation, then faith, repentance and good works must be the disposing causes all of election. The only way one side of that statement can be true is if the other one is true as well. If evil works foreseen are the meritorious cause of reprobation, then faith, repentance and good works must be the disposing causes unto salvation and by the same force of reason faith, repentance and foreseen good works must be the disposing cause unto election.

There are two reasons why faith, repentance, and foreseen good works cannot be the disposing causes unto election:

A. If this were true then the purpose of God according to election would be of faith, repentance and good works. But this is exactly what the apostle denies when he says that God's purpose of election stored before the children were born or had done good or evil. It obviously follows that the purpose of God according to election is not of works. And if this is true (and it is true), then it follows that the same purpose of God according to election is not of faith, nor of repentance. They were no more capable of faith or repentance before they were born than they were of any other good works. And certainly faith and repentance are as good a work as any other good works.

B. If God by sovereign fiat works faith in some and not in others according to the mere pleasure of his will, then it cannot be said that foreseen faith is the cause of any man's election. For this case faith is the means of salvation rather than salvation a means of faith. Consequently the intention of salvation precedes the intention of faith rather than the intention of faith can be said to precede the intention of salvation. And this is exactly what the Scriptures say. We read in Acts 13:48, “And as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.” This simply and plainly means that God’s ordain into eternal life is the cause why men believe. We find the same idea in Acts 2:47, “And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” Similarly, we find Paul saying to Titus, “according to the faith of God's elect.”

Someone who holds to classic Infralapsarianism should have no beef with the points we have just made. Both sides of the Supra/infra discussion should be agreed that, just as election is not conditioned upon foreseen good works, neither is reprobation conditioned upon foreseen bad works. Anyone who disagrees with the above statement that Reprobation is not based upon foreseen sin is not an Infralapsarian in the classical sense of the word.

We said all that to say 2 things: First, true Reformed Infralapsarianism views predestination, which includes election and reprobation, as unconditional. Any form of Infralapsarianism which views reprobation as conditional upon foreseen bad works, is not Infralapsarian in the true sense of the word, nor is it Reformed.

Supralapsarianism - Common Objections 3A

The 3rd objection against Supralapsarianism is that it is unfair.

3 This objection, as far as I can see, fails to even reach the level of being an objection because it smuggles in illegitimate premises. One must ask first of all from whence comes this notion of fairness. If Scripture makes anything clear, it is that the decree of predestination is an act of God’s sovereignty, not His justice.

Let me make good on that assertion. In Romans 9, Paul makes the argument that predestination is an act of God’s sovereignty, not His justice. Paul is completely aware of how this will sound to his opponents, those who view God’s choice and/or rejection of individuals as being based on foreseen merit or demerit. Paul is completely aware that to the unregenerate mind this will come off as unfair. The Holy Spirit speaking through the apostle Paul anticipates this objection. So we find it written:

“What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’ So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, ‘For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.’ So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.’ You will say to me then, ‘Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?’” Romans 9:14-19

If this objection had been due simply to a misunderstanding of Paul’s doctrine, he could easily have rectified the problem by simply modifying his statements. But we do not find Paul saying in response to this objection, “You misunderstand me, friend. I am not suggesting that God’s sovereignty extends even over the will of man. He only hardens those who resist His best efforts to save them.” Had Paul said something like that the opponent's objection would’ve dissipated instantly. The fact that Paul does not say something like this proves that he clearly concedes that he has been understood correctly by his opponent. He is therefore teaching that salvation is absolutely of the Lord, and that predestination is absolutely an act of divine sovereignty, not justice.

This is further seen by what Paul actually does say in response to this objection. Romans 9:20 says, "But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?'” Notice the argument of this passage. This is not an appeal to justice or fair play. It is an appeal to God’s absolute sovereign power. He goes on to say, “Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?” And this is a very powerful statement because it tells us, not that there was a fallen lump out of which honorable vessels and dishonorable vessels were formed, but that the one lump is comprised of vessels with a specific use already purposed. For in verses 22-24, he says, “What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory — even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?” This is incredibly strong language. For Paul not only says that some vessels were actually “prepared for glory,” which is a reference to election, but he also says that some vessels were actually “prepared for destruction,” which is a reference to reprobation. He furthermore says that reprobation serves election. And on top of it all, Paul makes it undeniably clear that predestination, which comprises election and reprobation, is not an act of God’s justice, but of his sovereignty. It is therefore unconditional.

Supralapsarianism - Common Objections 2

The 2^nd objection is this: Supralapsarianism makes God the author of sin.

2 Having pointed out that the first objection is unfair, we must further point out that the 2nd objection is even worse. You’ll remember that this objection claims that Supralapsarianism makes God the author of sin. This is absolutely untrue! Truth be told, Infralapsarianism does not escape this false accusation either. If what Infralapsarianism teaches is correct, namely that God is free from eternity to create or not to create, and that he created knowing with infallible certainty (decreeing that man should fall), then God should not have created. Thus we see that the Infralapsarians do not escape the reproach of those who want to say that God is the cause of perdition of man and the author of sin. Again, if it’s good enough for the goose, it should be good enough for the gander. No Infralapsarian has any business lodging this objection against Supralapsarianism because that knife cuts both ways.

Let me use a critic’s own words to show that Infralapsarianism is not off the hook with regard of the question of the origin of evil. Louis Berkhof, describing Supralapsarianism, which he at least mildly disagrees with, writes, “The order of the decrees, as accepted by the Supralapsarians, is regarded as the more ideal, the more logical and unified of the two. It clearly exhibits the rational order which exists between the ultimate end and the intermediate means. Therefore the Supralapsarians can, while the infralapsarians cannot, give a specific answer to the question why God decreed to create the world and to permit the fall. They do full justice to the sovereignty of God and refrain from all futile attempts to justify God in the sight of men, while the infralapsarian hesitate, attempt to prove the justice of God’s procedure, and yet in end must come to the same conclusion as the Supralapsarians, namely, that, in the last analysis, the decree to permit the fall finds its explanation only in the sovereign good pleasure of God” (Systematic Theology, p. 121).

That statement, taken at face value, would seem to make Infralapsarianism absolutely untenable. A couple of pages later, Berkhof makes the case for Infralapsarianism even worse, when he says, “Infralapsarianism really wants to explain reprobation as an act of God’s justice. It is inclined to deny either explicitly or implicitly that it as an act of mere good pleasure of God. This really makes the decree of reprobation a conditional decree and leads into the Arminian fold. But infralapsarians on the whole do not want to teach a conditional decree, and express themselves guardedly on this matter. Some of them admit that it is a mistake to consider reprobation purely as an act of divine justice. And this is perfectly correct. Sin is not the ultimate cause of reprobation any more then faith and good works are the cause of election, for all men are by nature dead in sin and trespasses. When confronted with the problem of reprobation, infralapsarians, too, can find the answer only in the good pleasure of God. Their language may sound more tender than that of the Supralapsarians, but is also more apt to be misunderstood, and after all proves to convey the same idea” (ibid. P. 124). If you were trying to come up with a stronger defense of Supralapsarianism, you would be hard-pressed to do better than this.

As I said, Infralapsarianism is not off the hook with regard to the question of the origin of evil are sin. Sometimes people smuggle in the standard of justice that rejects God’s absolute sovereignty in order to evaluate God’s decrees by it. Berkhof complains that Supralapsarianism does not give a solution to the problem of sin. He says that it what effect dare to say that God decreed to bring it into the world by his own direct efficiency. He seems to be unaware of the fact that some theologians do dare to say that God decreed to bring it into the world by some direct efficiency. And the truth of the matter is, Infralapsarianism cannot escape this charge either. Waffling on this question frequently forces people into a position which sounds an awful lot like dualism. I understand the reticence of pinning the responsibility for the existence of evil on God in any way, shape, or form. But the "mere permission" response comes awful close to saying that some other power has the ability to generate and control sin by its own direct efficiency, which, as I said, sounds suspiciously like dualism. Pushing the responsibility onto the shoulders of men or demons, doesn’t really answer anything. Adding more cars to train does not account for its movement; for that you need an engine.

Supralapsarianism - Common Objections 1

There are 4 common objections which are raised against the Supralapsarian position.

The 1^st objection is this: The elect and Christ are chosen in one decree.

The 2^nd objection is this: Supralapsarianism makes God the author of sin.

The 3^rd objection is that it is unfair.

The 4^th is that it is illogical because it conceives of a decree made in reference to nonentities.

I do not presume to suggest that these are the only objections ever raised against Supralapsarianism. But I do know that they are the most common. I would like to look at each one of them and explain why they either fail to reach the level of a legitimate objection, or raise questions which argue against the opposing view with at least as much force.

1 Because Supralapsarianism places election before the fall (before the necessity of the Mediator and Savior) it hereby separates the election of Christ from that of all the elect.

With regard to the first objection G.H. Kersten writes, “Although the election of Christ and of the elect is one decree, yet the chosen Mediator must be considered in two respects: as the Head of His elect, and as a representative Covenant Head. In election Christ is the Head of the Church that God has decreed to create in order to accomplish His sovereign predestination, and to save it through the depth of Adam’s fall, and therefore in predestination it must be considered as not yet created, nor fallen. In the Covenant of Redemption the elect are indeed seen is already created and fallen, for Christ represents them to satisfy all the requirements of the Covenant in their place, and to place them in covenant relationship to God unto salvation. He is able to represent them as their covenant Head because they are comprehended in Him by virtue of election just as Adam could place all his posterity into covenant relationship with God, because they were all in him because of creation. The Infralapsarian also makes a distinction in the one decree, although they do it in another order, separating creation and the fall from election and reprobation. But then the objection that the Supralapsarians separates the election of Christ from that of all the elect also falls away because predestination occurs out of sovereignty, and is not an act of mercy and of justice. It determines who shall and shall not be saved. The Covenant of Redemption teaches us how the elect shall be saved. Establishing this covenant brings the suretyship which is demanded from Christ to satisfy the violated righteousness of God. Neither do the Supralapsarians thus make a separation between the election of Christ and out of all the other elect.”-Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 1, Part 1, Chapter 8.

Kersten is arguing that this is an unfair, if not specious, objection. Supralapsarianism is accused of inserting a separation into God’s singular decree. If this is a valid objection, Infralapsarianism must fall by the same sword, since it makes a distinction in the one decree as well. Supralapsarianism views Christ, first as Head of the Church, which is comprised of those whom elected unto salvation, and secondly as a representative Covenant Head. Viewing Christ in these 2 respects allows us to make a distinction without making a separation between the election of Christ and that of all the other elect.

The objection is therefore not a valid one. But as we already mentioned, it appears to be an unfair argument as well. If Supralapsarianism is false because it makes a distinction in the one decree, Infralapsarianism must be false too, because it makes a distinction in the one decree. If it’s good enough for the goose, it should be good enough for the gander. Not to make too fine a point of it, but if that argument is unfair, then it’s unfair no matter who is used against.

This objection falls apart as soon as we realize that what is under discussion is the logical conception of the thing not its historical execution. Infralapsarianism, it seems to me, makes this mistake.

Lapsarian Chart

The following chart shows the various positions regarding the order of God's decree regarding predestination. Supralapsarianism is the position which this author affirms. Many orthodox Reformed theologians hold to Infralapsarianism.

Amryraldian theory asserts that because of God's love to fallen men He appointed Christ as a mediator for every single individual human being – and that by this means all barriers on the side of Divine justice have been removed. Salvation is thus said to have been made possible, but it adds the condition which switches the application of it to God's sovereign will: it is for all if they believe. It should be obvious that this theory alters the nature of the atonement. It holds that Christ, by His own intention and the Father's purpose, died for everyone, that a salvation was purchased for everyone though not applied to everyone. Moreover, the atonement, though not actually securing redemption or faith - by causal connection, made it possible for God to bestow salvation on anyone He pleased and to form a new covenant of grace with humanity in general. Thus the atonement is not a transaction in its own nature, involving a covenant or substitution and securing its own application. Again, note that, like Arminianism, this theory falsely assumes that a limitation to the extent of the atonement is somehow a limitation to the power of God and the love of God. It is frequently dubbed "Four-Point Calvinism." I hold Amyraldism to be heretical and I have written about it here and here. 

It goes without saying that since this blog uncompromisingly holds to Reformed theology, I have nothing but scorn for Arminianism.

Supralapsarianism - A Brief Historical Background, part 2

Before we proceed, a couple of important remarks should be made. First of all, the aforementioned list of illustrious theologians has not been supplied in order to coerce anyone into acquiescence. Anyone who claims the moniker, Reformed, should know better. On the other hand it does serve to illustrate that this is a position which does not lack intellectual integrity. Secondly, this should serve the brakes on the inane statement that only 5% of Reformed theologians have adhered to Supralapsarianism. It is asserted that Loraine Boettner claimed that no major Reformed theologians are/were Supralapsarian. I do not profess to know what Boettner meant by that statement, but I do know how people take it. You will notice that the first names I listed were the Magisterial Reformers themselves. If Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Beza held to Supralapsarianism, and their works are the theological framework for the Reformation, then it is not incumbent upon the 5% to prove their position, but upon the 95%. The burden of proof lies with them to demonstrate biblically why they are correct to not toe the line of their Reformed forebears.

Just as an aside, before we proceed any further, perhaps it would be good to demonstrate that Calvin was a Supralapsarian. Here is a very representative quote from his Institutes. Calvin writes, "As the Lord, by His effectual calling of the elect, completes the salvation to which He predestinated them in His eternal counsel, so He has His judgments against the reprobate, by which He executes His counsel respecting them. Those, therefore, whom He has created to a life of shame and a death of destruction, that they might be instruments of His wrath, and examples of His severity, He causes to reach their appointed end, sometimes depriving them of the opportunity of hearing the Word, sometimes, by the preaching of it, increasing their blindness and stupidity" (3.24.12).

Note carefully the words, "Those, therefore, whom He has created to a life of shame and a death of destruction, that they might be instruments of His wrath, and examples of His severity." This is clearly a Supralapsarian construction of the decree of Predestination. Calvin makes reprobation active; He doesn’t simply say "passed by" or "decreed to leave" or something similar. He says, "created to ...', which means the end of destruction. That is considerably stronger language than Belgic Confession 16 or Canons of Dordt 1:10, 15.

A 2nd historical fact needs to be addressed as well. Several of the important figures, make that, most important figures, at the Synod of Dort were Supralapsarians – such as the president Johannes Bogerman, Francisus Gomarus, Gijsbert Voetius. In fact one of the issues which the Synod dealt with was the “Maccovius” affair. Maccovius, professor of theology at Franeker, had been charged with heresy for teaching, among other things, Supralapsarianism. The charges were brought by his colleague, Lubertus. Maccovius appealed to the Synod. On the committee which heard his case were Bogerman and Gomarus, both Supralapsarians. The Synod did not condemn his Supralapsarianism, but it did warn him to not make his language too strong.

The Arminians attempted to exploit this in-house disagreement as an opportunity to draw attention away from their own heresy as if it were merely their intention to fight against Supralapsarianism, which they demanded be condemned. Synod president Bogerman refused to satisfy their demands and found a formula that could be accepted by both parties (Supra and Infra), since it only stated that predestination is an act of God’s sovereignty.

Two and a half decades later, the Westminster Assembly (1643 – 1648) left the question undecided. This is historically significant because the assembly was held 25 years after the Synod of Dort, which means that the English theologian’s new all about the controversy. Furthermore, the Prolocutor of the Assembly (i.e. moderator) William Twisse, was a Supralapsarian. A stauncher Supralapsarian has probably never lived.

It is frequently argued that the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Standards are expressly Infralapsarian. That is a highly problematic assertion since it requires that men such as Bogerman, Gomarus, Voetius and Twisse all assigned creeds against their own convictions.

Having said that, we must hasten to add that both positions can certainly forbear each other because both parties clearly maintain the sovereignty of God’s decree, and neither denies man’s responsibility for his acts. Neither position can be condemned as un-Reformed. A simple proof of this can be found in the ultimate primer for Supralapsariansism, William Twisse's "The Riches of God's Love Unto the Vessells of Mercy, Consistent with His Absolute Hatred or Reprobation on the Vessells of Wrath." Twisse spends the first 30+ pages defining and defending the Supralapsarian position, but most of the rest of the book defending Infralapsarianism from Arminian cavils.

Supralapsarianism - A Brief Historical Background, part 1

In the upcoming series of posts, I wish to look at the subject of Supralapsarianism. To do so course, we must first acknowledge that this is a strictly Reformed category, and distinguish it as well from the viewpoint called Infralapsarianism. The names were first introduced in the days of the Arminian disputes when pamphlets published spoke of a “high” and “low” doctrine concerning predestination. The terms were used at the Synod of Dort, yet the subject to which these terms are affixed has existed in the church since the days of old. The difference between these terms indicates the opinions among orthodox Reformed theologians concerning the order of decrees of God in relation to the eternal state of man. Supralapsarianism states that in the decree of election and rejection God did not consider man is already created and fallen, but that man was then represented as still to be created and still to fall.

Infralapsarianism, on the other hand, views man in predestination as having been created and having fallen. This is not to say that God elected and rejected man after he was created and after he had fallen, because Infralapsarianism also teaches election and reprobation from eternity. The distinction is that God elected Psalm out of fallen mankind as he saw them by virtue of his eternal foreknowledge.

We first become familiar with these 2 terms around the time of the Synod of Dort. But the concepts embodied by these 2 terms services much earlier and in similar circumstances. The Synod of Dort was handling the issue of Arminianism. But many centuries earlier Augustine, in his confrontations with the Fountainhead of Arminianism, Pelagius, drew up his argument along the lines of Supralapsarianism. Pelagius stated his position thus: God had –

1) decreed to create man,

2) decreed to send Christ to satisfy for all men for the foreseen, but not decreed fall, and

3) decreed to condemn and to save on the grounds of foreseen unbelief on the one hand and on the ground the foreseen faith and good works on the other hand.

It is true that generally speaking, Augustine did choose the viewpoint of Infralapsarianism. But in his confrontation with Pelagius, he clearly argued in a Supralapsarian way. Augustine opposed Pelagius by saying that God’s decree is the cause of all things, good and evil. God did not wait to see what man would do and then decree. On the contrary all the acts of man are the performance of God’s decree in which the permission is also determined. The permission to sin, therefore is not negative, positive. God’s decree precedes the fall. Whatever happens against God’s revealed will does not happen without he’s decreed will. God not only permits things knowingly, but willingly. Reprobation, therefore, is an act of God’s sovereignty, not of his justice.

Let’s pause for a second to distinguish, or delineate the two views, before we proceed with the short historical background.

The two views can be presented thus:

Supralapsarianism:

1. Predestination (Election and Reprobation)

2. Creation

3. The Fall

Notice that Predestination is above the fall logically considered, hence supra.

Infralapsarianism:

1. Creation

2. The Fall

3. Predestination (Election and Reprobation)

Notice that Predestination is placed below the Fall logically considered, hence infra.

The difference between the two views has nothing to do with the temporal order of the Divine decrees, since that is an oxymoron. God is not bound by our dimension of time. He is eternal in the truest sense of the word. Nothing is ever before or after to God. He views all things, as Boethius says, in an everlasting present. This means that the decrees of God are not to be viewed in a temporal way. What the two views are referring to is logical order.

The Supralaspsarian places predestination above the Fall, in logical order. He therefore teaches:

A. God has decreed to glorify Himself in angels and men, in both His righteousness and His mercy. Hence,

B. He decreed creation and the Fall.

Essentially, what this says is, Predestination, which includes Election and Reprobation, precedes creation and the Fall, also in God’s decree. They are the means of accomplishing predestination.

The Infralapsarian, on the other hand, says that God elected and rejected already viewed as created and fallen, i.e., predestined out of fallen humanity.

The Reformers Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Beza, Knox, Musculus, and Ramus were all Supralapsarians. Other notable Supralapsarians were Gottschalk of Orbais (808 – 867); William Ames (1576-1633), Johannes Bogerman (1576-1637) , Synod of Dort president, Giovanni Diodati (1576-1649), Francis Gomarus (1563-1641), Thomas Goodwin (1600-1680), William Perkins (1558-1602), Samuel Rutherford (1600-1661), Robert Traill (1642-1716), Augustus M. Toplady (1740–1778), Theodore Tronchin (1582-1687) Beza’s son-in-law, Benedict Turretin (1588-1631) Francis’ father , William Twisse, (1578-1646) Prolucutor of the Westminster Assembly; Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499-1562), Gisbertus Voetius (1589-1676), William Whitaker (1548-1595), and Jerome Zanchius (1516-1590).