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.