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).
No comments:
Post a Comment