Supralapsarian or Infralapsarian ?

[mayflower]

Supralapsarian:

a. God first decreed to glorify Himself in the salvation of some and in the damnation of other men, who at this stage existed in His mind only as possibilities.
b. As a means to that end, He decreed to create those already elected or reprobated.
c. For the consummation of the plan so far formed, He further decreed to permit man to fall.
d. Finally, He decreed to open up a way of salvation for the elect and to lead them to everlasting glory, passing the others by and consigning them to everlasting destruction for their sin.


Infralapsarian:

a. God first decreed to create man.
b. Then He decreed to permit the fall of man.
c. Next He decreed to elect a certain number of the fallen and justly condemned race to eternal life, and to pass the others by, consigning them to everlasting destruction for their sin.
d. Finally, He decreed to provide a way of salvation for the elect.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do which view do you hold, and why ?

[Bert Mulder]

I hold to the Supra view, although we have to realize that time, and anything related to time, is also a creation of God, and God, being eternal, is not bound by time and sequence.

But the Supra view best emphasizes the Glory of God.

[Flynn]

I hold to the Supra view, although we have to realize that time, and anything related to time, is also a creation of God, and God, being eternal, is not bound by time and sequence.

But the Supra view best emphasizes the Glory of God.

For you interest's sake,

I have also posted Turretin's rebuttal of supralapsarianism here:
http://www.theologyonline.org/blog/?p=410

It is one of the best refutations of supralapsarianism I have seen.

David

[refo]

These descriptions are like someone who tries to draw a 4D thing on a 2D piece of paper.

[Flynn]

This descriptions are like someone who tries to draw a 4D thing on a 2D piece of paper.

Exactly. The entire lapsarian project should never have happened. Dabney is very good in pointing that out.

Thanks
David

[Kaw]

0. There is a rule in computer science: if a situation can occur, it will occur.
1. God decided to create an earth.
&
1. God decided to create humans (and angels) that have freedom of will.
2.-1 God is aware of rule zero.
2. God decided to give Himself in the face of time of His Son, in order to restore rule zero because He loves the world and it's cool that it also glorifies Him.
3. God decided to create after a certain time a new heaven and world where the freedom of will has been splitted into a number of people in heaven and into an number of people in hell, where the purified will in heaven will stay good and where the fallen will of the hell will stay bad, where the sum of will is equal to zero to meet rule 0.
:mrgreen: Just my 2 cents.

[jvdg]

The entire lapsarian project should never have happened. Dabney is very good in pointing that out.

Meaning Mr. Darby?

If not, who is Mr. Dabney?

[Flynn]

Meaning Mr. Darby?

If not, who is Mr. Dabney?

Ah sorry JVDG,

I forgot. Robert L. Dabney. He was one of the fathers of American Southern Presbyterians. He is a personal favourite of mine. He is about the first to explicitly reject the entire lapsarian project. He does say that supralapsarianism is more wrong, and he will defend the infra schema, but in the final analysis he rejects the logical ordering.

Supralapsarian Scheme.

The first suppose that in a rational mind, that which is ultimate as end, is first in design; and that, in the process of planning, the mind passes from the end to the means, traveling as it were backwards. Hence, God first designed His own glory by the salvation of a definite number of men conceived as yet only as in posse , and the reprobation of another definite number; that then He purposed their creation, then the permission of their fall, and then the other parts of the plan of redemption for the elect. I do not mean to represent that they impute to God an actual succession of time as to the rise of the parts of the decree in His eternal mind, but that these divines represent God as planning man’s creation and fall, as a means for carrying out His predestination, instead of planning his election as a means for repairing his fall.

Sublapsarian Scheme.

The Sublapsarian assigns the opposite order; that God determined to create man in His own image, to place him under a covenant of works, to permit his fall, and with reference to the fallen and guilty state thus produced, to elect in sovereign mercy some to be saved, passing by the rest in righteous judgment upon their sins, and that He further decreed to send Jesus Christ to redeem the elect. This milder scheme the Supralapsarians assert to be attended with the vice of the Arminian, in making the decree conditional; in that God’s decree of predestination is made dependent on man’s use of his free will under the covenant of works. They also assert that their scheme is the symmetrical one, in that it assigns the rational order which exists between ultimate end and intermediate means.

Both Erroneous.

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.

Objections To the Supralapsarian.

But we object more particularly to the Supralapsarian scheme.

(a) That it is erroneous in representing God as having before His mind, as the objects of predestination, men conceived in posse only; and in making creation a means of their salvation or damnation. Whereas, an object must be conceived as existing, in order to have its destiny given to it. And creation can with no propriety be called a means for effectuating a decree of predestination as to creatures. It is rather a prerequisite of such decree.

(b.) It contradicts Scripture, which teaches us that God chose His elect "out of the world," John 15:19, and out of the "same lump" with the vessels of dishonor (Rom. 9:21). They were then regarded as being, along with the non–elect, in the common state of sin and misery.

(c.) Our election is in Christ our Redeemer (Eph. 1:4; 3:11), which clearly shows that we are conceived as being fallen, and in need of a Redeemer, in this act. And, moreover, our election is an election to the exercise of saving graces to be wrought in us by Christ (1 Pet. 1:2; 2 Thess. 2:13). (d.) Election is declared to be an act of mercy (Rom. 9:15 16, 11:5, 6), and preterition is an act of justice (Rom. 9:22). Now as mercy and goodness imply an apprehension of guilt and misery in their object, so justice implies ill-desert. This shows that man is predestined as fallen; and is not permitted to fall because predestined. I will conclude this part, by repeating the language of Turrettin, Loc. 4, Qu. 18, 5.

1. "By this hypothesis, the first act of God’s will towards some of His creatures is conceived to be an act of hatred, in so far as He willed to demonstrate His righteousness in their damnation, and indeed before they were considered as in sin, and consequently before they were deserving of hatred; nay, while they were conceived as still innocent, and so rather the objects of love. This does not seem compatible with God’s ineffable goodness.

2. "It is likewise harsh that, according to this scheme, God is supposed to have imparted to them far the greatest effects of love, out of a principle of hatred, in that He determines to create them in a state of integrity to this end, that He may illustrate His righteousness in their damnation. This seems to express Him neither as supremely good nor as supremely wise and just.

3. "It is erroneously supposed that God exercised an act of mercy and justice towards His creatures in His foreordination of their salvation and destruction, in that they are conceived as neither wretched, nor even existing as yet. But since those virtues (mercy and justice) are relative, they pre-suppose their object, do not make it.

4. "It is also asserted without warrant, that creation and the fall are means of election and reprobation, since they are antecedent to them: else sin would be on account of damnation, whereas damnation is on account of sin; and God would be said to have created men that He might destroy them."

Lectures, pp., 232-234. Dabney is leaning heavily on Turretin there. There is a great work by Grohman I thknk where he explains that Turretin turned the Genevan acadamy away from Beza's supralapsarianism.

For Dabney, as I read him, the matter is not about a linear logical sequence, but each point mutually dependent, logically.

John Frame also has some cogent criticisms of the lapsarian schemas, as they confuse logical and historical connectors.

Of course you would know of Herman Bavinck. His discussion is briliant too.

Thanks and take care,
David

[refo]

One creature doesn't believe election or any other doctrine thereabout, supra nor infra. It's satan. Read the Bible: he tried to avoid Christ to be born. And being born tried to kill Him.
And he also forces people to sin, so that can't be elected, er... I mean: so that they will not believe.

I think it's right to say that God elected to glorify Himself. But what cannot be right are the implications that theologicians made from that doctrine.

[Kaw]

One creature doesn't believe election or any other doctrine thereabout, supra nor infra. It's satan. Read the Bible: he tried to avoid Christ to be born. And being born tried to kill Him.
And he also forces people to sin, so that can't be elected, er... I mean: so that they will not believe.

I think it's right to say that God elected to glorify Himself. But what cannot be right are the implications that theologicians made from that doctrine.

Sharp vision Refo.

[jvdg]

Supra- or infralapsarian, it is a very difficult subject to be discussed.

In Dutch it is very difficult to me, but in English it's still more difficult to explain my opinion on/to this topic.

PLease, Mr. Flynn, will you be so kind to explain your opinion without only references to several (not known) theologicals.

My leading theology can be found in the Bible, the base for all our thoughts, delighted by the Holy Spirit.

[memento]

The big problem with the whole 'lapsarian' discussion is the assumption that had to decree the fall. As I belief that God is totally free, and almighty, I don't see why this has to be. Why not simply belief that the fall wasn't decreed. That God simply did choose not to intervene, that He preferred the spectators role this time?

So the order becomes:
a. God first decreed to create man.
b. Next, foreseeing that man would fall, He decreed to elect a certain number of the fallen and justly condemned race to eternal life, and to pass the others by, consigning them to everlasting destruction for their sin.
c. Finally, He decreed to provide a way of salvation for the elect.

[Kaw]

The big problem with the whole 'lapsarian' discussion is the assumption that had to decree the fall. As I belief that God is totally free, and almighty, I don't see why this has to be. Why not simply belief that the fall wasn't decreed. That God simply did choose not to intervene, that He preferred the spectators role this time?

That's also my point. It could occur and therefor God knew it would occur. He did not choose the fall.

[Flynn]

Supra- or infralapsarian, it is a very difficult subject to be discussed.

In Dutch it is very difficult to me, but in English it's still more difficult to explain my opinion on/to this topic.

PLease, Mr. Flynn, will you be so kind to explain your opinion without only references to several (not known) theologicals.

My leading theology can be found in the Bible, the base for all our thoughts, delighted by the Holy Spirit.

Hey JVDG,

Its a little hard for me to not engage the theologians because the theologians, some of them, invented this stuff.

Basically I have these criticisms.

1. Following Dabney the aim is not to to see the decrees of God in linear fashion, but as co-terminous, each referencing the other. Like this: think of a triangle. In order to think of a triangle, you have to think of all three points similtaneously. You cant think of 1 point, then the next, then the next, because then you cant think of the triangle. I believe this is Dabney's point.

2. The lapsarian schema is a trap in that it imagines one can obtain a divine vantage point on God's redemptive plan. And here Calvin is genius. We are to only focus on the revealed will, not the decretive. There are some analogies I can use to explain this.

3. I totally agree with Turretin that Paul's use of mercy and justice presuppose a NON-supralapsarian schema:

Romans 9:22-23 What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath-- prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory--

Turretin points out that the objects of the decree are fallen, in misery and subject to punishment. In systematic theology, mercy presupposes misery. One gives mercy to the one in affliction. One gives wrath to the transgressor. Turretin points out, the objects in the divine contemplation are not objects in the pure mass, or pure creatable mass.

4. There is no supralapsarianism in Augustine down to Calvin. All of them have election out of a corrupt mass.

Those would be my comments.
Take care,
David

[Flynn]

So the order becomes:
a. God first decreed to create man.
b. Next, foreseeing that man would fall, He decreed to elect a certain number of the fallen and justly condemned race to eternal life, and to pass the others by, consigning them to everlasting destruction for their sin.
c. Finally, He decreed to provide a way of salvation for the elect.

G'day Momento,

Have you read Berkouwer on this? His "Divine Election." He points out that the early Reformed held that God grounded his decree, in some part, on foreknowledge. Then he noted that later Calvinist infralapsarians stepped back from that.

Bavinck is also good in that we have to conceptualise divine causation of reprobation in a way that is not this, and yet not that either.

The hypercalvinist says that God causes reprobation in a straightline. Bavinck denied that and warned his readers to reject that temptation. And yet we know that God did not reprobate--the act of preterition--based on bare foreknowledge.

So we know that reprobation is NOT based on a straightline causation.

And we know that reprobation is NOT based on bare foreknowledge.

What we dont know, is how it works. We only know that we cannot assert either propositions without falling into blasphemy for the first, and error for the second.

I think the medieval scholastic idea of via negativa is the way to go.

Take care,
David