Our God Reigns: An Amillennial Commentary on Revelation is available now. Purchase your copy today!

All Articles

There would seem to be little doubt that God’s redemptive purpose antedates creation. Jesus declared that he came from heaven to accomplish the “will” of the Father (John 6:38). His sufferings were in accordance with the “predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23; cf. Acts 4:27-28; 1 Pt. 1:20). God’s electing purpose antedates creation (Eph. 1:4; 2 Thess. 2:13; 1 Pt. 1:1-2; Rev. 13:8; 17:8). See also Eph. 1:11. If, as Paul says, all things have been created not only “by” Jesus Christ but also “for” him (Col. 1:16), then creation in its totality exists as a means to the fulfillment of some specific purpose that terminates on and for the sake of Jesus Christ. Our salvation, says Paul, is in accordance with God’s own “purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity” (2 Tim. 1:9).

 

The Order of the Divine Decrees

 

The point of the preceding is to indicate that God developed a plan in eternity past. The theological and logical interrelationship among the various elements in that plan is the focus of this study. The debate historically has focused on the distinction between supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism:

 

·      “Supralapsarian” is derived from two Latin words which, when combined, reflect the view that the decree of predestination (that is, the decree to elect and reprobate) precedes or is “above” (supra) the decree concerning the fall (lapsus).

 

·      “Infralapsarianism” contends that the decree of predestination is subsequent to or “below” (infra) the decree concerning the fall.

 

All supralapsarian (hereafter supra) schemes share one point in common: the decree of election/reprobation is antecedent to that concerning the fall. Similarly, all infralapsarian (hereafter infra) schemes share a common theme: the decree of election/reprobation is subsequent to that concerning the fall. The question, therefore, “is whether sin is in the Divine thought antecedent to condemnation, the real ground of it, or only a providential means of executing the decree of reprobation formed irrespective of it” (James Henley Thornwell, Collected Writings [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1974], II:21).

 

Supralapsarian Calvinistic Theories

 

(A)      High Supralapsarianism

 

1.         the decree to elect and reprobate

2.         the decree to create all humanity

3.         the decree to ordain the fall

4.         the decree to provide salvation in Christ for the elect

5.         the decree to apply salvation to the elect through the HS

 

(B)       Low Supralapsarianism

 

1.         the decree to create all humanity

2.         the decree to elect and reprobate

3.         the decree to ordain the fall

4.         the decree to provide salvation in Christ for the elect

5.         the decree to apply salvation to the elect through the HS

 

(C)       Teleological Supralapsarianism

 

1.         the decree to elect and reprobate

2.         the decree to apply salvation to the elect through the HS

3.         the decree to provide salvation in Christ for the elect

4.         the decree to ordain the fall

5.         the decree to create all humanity

 

This variation of supra was held by Gordon H. Clark, who argued that what is last in execution must be first in purpose or intention (quod ultimum est in executione, debet esse primum in intentione). See Clark’s book, What Do Presbyterians Believe? (Philadelphia: P & R Publishing Co., 1976), 49-60; and The Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark: A Festschrift (Philadelphia: P & R. Publishing Co., 1968), 395-98, 478-84.

In other words, the last thing in history, which is the ultimate salvation of the elect and the condemnation of the non-elect, must be first in the order of decrees. That which is first in the order of history (creation) must be last in the order of intent.

 

Infralapsarian Calvinistic Theories

 

(A)      Hard Infralapsarianism

 

1.         the decree to create all humanity

2.         the decree to ordain the fall

3.         the decree to elect and reprobate

4.         the decree to provide salvation in Christ for the elect

5.         the decree to apply salvation to the elect through the HS

 

(B)       Soft Infralapsarianism

 

1.         the decree to create all humanity

2.         the decree to permit the fall

3.         the decree to elect and reprobate

4.         the decree to provide salvation in Christ for the elect

5.         the decree to apply salvation to the elect through the HS

 

The only difference between these two views is how they relate the will or decree of God to the fall of the race in Adam. “Soft” infras prefer to speak of God as having “permitted” the fall. The fall is not something that escapes the providential oversight of God, but the concern is to preserve God from being charged as the author of sin (auctor peccati).

 

(C)       Amyraldian Infralapsarianism

 

1.         the decree to create all humanity

2.         the decree to permit the fall

3.         the decree to provide salvation in Christ for all humanity

4.         the decree to elect and reprobate

5.         the decree to apply salvation to the elect through the HS

 

This view is also known as “hypothetical universalism” and is a reflection of the theology of Moise Amyraut (Moses Amyraldus), a 17th century reformed theologian. On this view, the redemptive sufferings of Christ are “unlimited” (Christ died for all people), thus making “hypothetically possible” the salvation of all people. But, since no one wills to embrace the work of Christ by faith, God decrees the undeserved salvation of some and the just condemnation of others. This is the view of “4-point Calvinism.”

 

Non-Calvinistic Theories

 

(A)      Arminian Infralapsarianism

 

1.         the decree to create all humanity

2.         the decree to permit the fall

3.         the decree to provide salvation in Christ for all people

4.         the decree to provide prevenient grace to all people, enabling them to believe

5.         the decree to elect those God “foreknows” will exercise faith in Christ and the decree to leave all others to the recompense of their sin

 

(B)       Universalistic Infralapsarianism

 

1.         the decree to create all humanity

2.         the decree to permit the fall

3.         the decree to elect all humanity to eternal life and salvation

4.         the decree to provide salvation in Christ for all people

5.         the decree to apply salvation to all people through the HS

 

 

Our primary concern is with the difference between Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism, specifically the way in which the objects of election and reprobation are conceived.

 

When God determined to glorify himself by the decree to save some and condemn others, were the respective objects of that decree conceived as creatable or created, unfallen or fallen? By placing the decree of election/reprobation prior to that of creation and the fall, supra affirms that its objects were, in the divine mind, only “potential” and thus morally neutral. Creation and the fall of man thus become the means by which the antecedent purpose of election and reprobation is realized. By placing the decree of election/reprobation subsequent to that of both creation and the fall, infra affirms that its objects were, in the divine mind, both “actual” and morally corrupt.

 

Following are a few criticisms of the supra scheme:

 

This first objection pertains only to “high” supralapsarianism: Nothing can be determined of a non-entity. How can God determine or decree the election and reprobation of what is at best “potential”? According to supra, God’s electing and reprobating activity terminates on no legitimate object. Simply put, of whom or what are election and reprobation predicated?

 

Second, election and reprobation presuppose not simply created entities but fallen and ill-deserving entities. Election is portrayed in Scripture as an act of mercy and compassion, in the same way that reprobation is portrayed as an act of justice. However, on the supra view, both election and reprobation are operations of mere sovereignty. Consider these statements:

 

“There can be no foreordination to death which does not contemplate its objects as already sinful” (Charles Hodge, II:318).

 

“That cannot be found which is not lost, and that cannot be saved which is in no danger” (James H. Thornwell, II:23).

 

Supra makes the decree “a purpose to save what in the light of the decree is not lost” (Thornwell, II:24).

 

“The very notion of revenging justice, simply considered, supposes a fault to be revenged” (Jonathan Edwards, Banner ed., II:540).

 

“If God had predestined man to glory before the fall, this would have been an act of outstanding goodness, but one which could not rightly be called mercy; for mercy is concerned not only with those who are not worthy, but with those who are unworthy, deserving its opposite. Likewise, if God had condemned man who was free from all sin, this would have been an act of absolute power, but not of justice. God mercifully frees, and justly condemns, as Augustine said” (Francis Turretin, Reformed Dogmatics, Beardslee, 368).

 

“The revelation of the misericordia Dei presupposes an already existent miser, and the revelation of the iustitia Dei presupposes an already existent iniustitia. And both these presuppose an existent creature to whom that two-fold revelation can apply, and also the creation of this creature” (Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, II:2:130).

 

Third, creation is never in the Bible represented as a means of executing the purpose of election and reprobation. Nor is the fall portrayed as a necessary instrument by which an antecedent salvific and condemnatory purpose is secured. As Barth put it,

 

“Obviously the sick man cannot be cured unless he exists as a man and is sick. But obviously, too, his existence as a man and his sickness cannot be regarded as means to cure him” (II:2:131).

 

Fourth, many have argued that supra is inconsistent with our intuitive understanding of divine mercy and justice. John Girardeau is representative of this objection:

 

“Now the fundamental laws of justice and benevolence, implanted by the divine hand in our moral constitution, rise up in revolt against the doctrine that God first determines to glorify his justice in the damnation of man, and then determines to create them and ‘efficaciously to procure’ their fall into sin in order to execute that purpose. The Supralapsarian logically makes God the efficient producer of sin” (Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism, 43).

 

Fifth, Herman Bavinck indicts supra insofar as

 

“it makes the eternal punishment of the reprobate an object of the divine will in the same manner and in the same sense as the eternal salvation of the elect; and that it makes sin, which leads to eternal destruction, a means in the same manner and in the same sense as the redemption in Christ is a means unto eternal salvation” (The Doctrine of God, 388).