Infralapsarianism and Supralapsarianism: Practical Implications

[Scott1]

Westminster Confession of Faith
[Emphasis added]

Chapter III
Of God's Eternal Decree

I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3]

II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions;[4] yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.[5]

III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels[6] are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.[7]

IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.[8]

V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, has chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory,[9] out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto;[10] and all to the praise of His glorious grace.[11]

VI. As God has appointed the elect unto glory, so has He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto.[12] Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ,[13] are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified,[14] and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation.[15] Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.[16]

VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.[17]

VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care,[18] that men, attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election.[19] So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God;[20] and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel.[21]

While acknowledging that God gets glory for both His mercy (those He graciously redeems) and His justice (those He gives justice to), the Confession uses the term "passes by."

Would we say the Confession leans "infra" or does the Confession state only the common truths of both "infra" and "supra," having been written at a time when those terms were not even used?

 

[MW]

While acknowledging that God gets glory for both His mercy (those He graciously redeems) and His justice (those He gives justice to), the Confession uses the term "passes by."

Would we say the Confession leans "infra" or does the Confession state only the common truths of both "infra" and "supra," having been written at a time when those terms were not even used?

The Confession leans towards supralapsarianism but accommodates the infralapsarian view. We should note the following:

1. Sect. 2, "yet has He not decreed ... as that which would come to pass upon such conditions." All things are decreed unconditionally and come to pass because they are decreed unconditionally.

2. Sect. 3, "By the decree of God ... foreordained to everlasting death." However the word "foreordination" might remove the idea of equal ultimacy so far as means are concerned, it does not remove equal ultimacy as to the end being decreed.

3. Sect. 5, 6, deal specifically with the means of salvation. The elect are placed in Christ; the reprobate are "passed by" and are to be punished for their sins. Supralapsarians acknowledge preterition and damnation for sin so far as means are concerned.

 

[steven-nemes]

It seems to me that Romans 11:32 teaches supralapsarianism: "For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all."

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

I suspect that like creationism and traducianism, the practical impact of these doctrines is seen not directly, but in the way that they safeguard and inform your views of other doctrines.

R.L. Dabney in his Systematic Theology believes that the controversy over Supra vs. Infra (along with Creationism vs. Traducianism) arises from an inward need of some Reformed theologians to seek to be too precise with language in these areas and he finds the discussion to be missing the point.

 

[MW]

R.L. Dabney in his Systematic Theology believes that the controversy over Supra vs. Infra (along with Creationism vs. Traducianism) arises from an inward need of some Reformed theologians to seek to be too precise with language in these areas and he finds the discussion to be missing the point.

One should read Dabney's reviews of Hodge and Breckenridge to see what precision of language is and why it is so necessary in sytematic theology. When one reads Dabney's views on the doctrines of grace it is understandable why he would not like precision of language in this area. He abandoned the traditional voluntarist scheme and conceded so much to necessitarian thinking that only the skeleton of the old Calvinism remained.

 

[Scott1]

Here's what is confusing.

Phillip R. Johnson at this site summarizes these views and their place in reformed theology historically:
Notes on Supralapsarianism & Infralapsarianism

He states the following about the historic creeds leaning "infra":

All the major Reformed Creeds are either explicitly infralapsarian, or else they carefully avoid language that favors either view. No major creed takes the supra position. (This whole issue was hotly debated throughout the Westminster Assembly. William Twisse, an ardent supralapsarian and chairman of the Assembly, ably defended his view. But the Assembly opted for language that clearly favors the infra position, yet without condemning supralapsarianism.)

Isn't it accurate to say the Confession does not teach what is called "equal ultimacy" that is a symmetric decree for salvation for some, judgment for others. Rather it teaches pro-active intervention for salvation, but not for judgment... but still all the Glory of God's justice and mercy.

Isn't this asymmetrical means of decree, more infralapsarian and isn't that really what the Confession is summarizing?

 

[Radical_Pilgrim]

This seems like a good topic for me a relatively new reformed believer as well to pine in on a question I have regarding this and a few other debates.

When do we know if we are reading or trying to read too much into the mind of God? When you start discussing the logic and trying to figure topics such as these, where is the line?

Thanks!

 

[MW]

Phillip R. Johnson at this site summarizes these views and their place in reformed theology historically:

But the Assembly opted for language that clearly favors the infra position, yet without condemning supralapsarianism.)

This is mere assertion. The first two points I noted earlier are distinctively supralapsarian; and the third point shows the agreement with, and accommodation of, infralapsarianism, in the means of the decree.

Isn't this asymmetrical means of decree, more infralapsarian and isn't that really what the Confession is summarizing?

No, it is not an infralapsarian distinctive. Supralapsarians still have means of salvation and damnation; it is just that they place it lower in the order of decrees. If I embark on a train at a station prior to you, and we are going to the same destination, I am still on the train at the point at which you embark.

 

[Reformed Rush]

VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.


While acknowledging that God gets glory for both His mercy (those He graciously redeems) and His justice (those He gives justice to), the Confession uses the term "passes by."

Would we say the Confession leans "infra" or does the Confession state only the common truths of both "infra" and "supra," having been written at a time when those terms were not even used?

The terms might not have been the same, but both views were represented amongst the Divines . . .but it was not a football game where one side bettered or out-scored the other, to establish a "winner."

I believe both Supra and Infra views were represented in the final product of the WCF.

However, please note my underlined emphasis above. The "passing by" was not God "passively" enduring reprobates, but rather, reprobation is still clearly declared to be the act of Godly ordination.

 

[Scott1]

VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.


While acknowledging that God gets glory for both His mercy (those He graciously redeems) and His justice (those He gives justice to), the Confession uses the term "passes by."

Would we say the Confession leans "infra" or does the Confession state only the common truths of both "infra" and "supra," having been written at a time when those terms were not even used?

The terms might not have been the same, but both views were represented amongst the Divines . . .but it was not a football game where one side bettered or out-scored the other, to establish a "winner."

I believe both Supra and Infra views were represented in the final product of the WCF.

However, please note my underlined emphasis above. The "passing by" was not God "passively" enduring reprobates, but rather, reprobation is still clearly declared to be the act of Godly ordination.

But the "infra" view doesn't say God is passive in allowing sinners to receive justice, does it?

It just says that God is pro-active in the sense of intervening to provide mercy (instead of justice) to some sinners, in a way He is not for those who are "passed by" to receive justice- still all according to the immutable counsel of the good pleasure of His will. Is that how you understand it?

 

[JTB]

Robert Reymond's Systematic Theology has an excellent discussion of the various lapsarian views and a solid defense of teleological supralapsarianism (which has not been the majority of supra views amongst those in the Reformed tradition).

Gordon Clark addresses the logical and exegetical import of the debate in his commentary on Ephesians (3:9-10).

The verse states that God who created all things, SO THAT the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.

Creation is a subordinate decree on the basis of its being purpose to allow God to demonstrate Himself through the Church.

Creation is a means by which God is able to reveal Himself through the Church. Creation is temporally prior because we must be created before we can reveal anything, but God's purpose to reveal Himself through the Church is logically prior to Creation, because Creation is a means, not an end (and logically, or better yet, teleologically, the end of the matter temporally is the beginning of the matter logically).

Thus, the logical order of the decrees must subordinate creation to God's more primary purpose, which is His election of those in the Church unto grace in Christ Jesus.

What is the practical import? Well, several things:

1. Teleological Supralapsarianism is more logically consistent, because in positing Creation first, infralapsarianism gives us an object for which there is no purpose outside itself. In order to be logically arranged, whatever comes first is the chief end, and we know that Creation is not God's most primary means for displaying His glory, but rather it is our election in Christ.

2. By having a logically sound and completely purpose driven explanation of the decrees, the supralapsarian view glorifies God's orderly mind and determinative will. The infralapsarian position places a mild counter-purpose in God's mind by having him plunge all into sin prior to his having decreed to elect any unto His favor. Thus God in one logical moment disfavors all, but in the next logical moment favors some. Temporally this seems no problem, but logically it presents a less favorable construction.

3. The supralapsarian can validly argue that God's chief end with respect to man was to elect some unto glory and condemns some unto reprobation without respect to their status. Infralapsarians have prior reasons why God is determining His glory--Creation is more prominent than election, and so too is our plunge into sin. Are those aspects of God's thought truly prior to His setting His love upon some and His hate upon others? We hear all about the redemptive-historical flow of Scripture as its kernel or key thread, but only the supralapsarian view provides solid logical ground for such a claim.

There may be other practical implications as well, but these are a few that come immediately to mind.

 

[Confessor]

Joshua,

I agree with what you said in full.

Is there a specific name for non-teleological supralapsarianism?

 

[charliejunfan]

How about we just think of God's reasoning as an infinite, eternal circle rather than a progressive, linear line and dodge the entire issue.

Seriously though, if we look at God's decree as all things present at all times as opposed to trying to piece the puzzle together in linear logical order then I think it is both and neither, it is perfect.

Or I could just be crazy and illogical in which case....

I think that instead of looking at election as determining the proper order to result in God's glory we should look at God's unchanging character and attributes since His Holiness is responsible for His Desire (in my opinion). I think this would make justice a result of sin, justice a result of righteousness, and mercy a result of Christ righteousness making mercy just.---INFRALAPSARIANISM
(I like the word INFRA better than SUPRA, I don't like the word SUPERMAN)

It is late and I think all of what I just wrote is probably illogical and crazy in which case you guys can pick it apart while I am refreshed by sleep and come back with a better argument.

 

[Scott1]

This seems like a good topic for me a relatively new reformed believer as well to pine in on a question I have regarding this and a few other debates.

When do we know if we are reading or trying to read too much into the mind of God? When you start discussing the logic and trying to figure topics such as these, where is the line?

Thanks!

It's helpful to remember to focus on reading God's Word and asking the Holy Spirit to help illuminate your understanding.

While the discussion of "infra" and "supra" might be helpful, it's really not something to focus on. Many times understanding the concepts around them will help you understand the covenants of covenant theology:

Covenants of:

1) redemption
2) works
3) grace

(In the end, none are at all dependent on "infra" or "supra" so don't unduly focus on that).

When you are talking about eternality, trying to order things temporally really becomes an academic exercise. We don't want to lose focus on the more important issues of the attributes of our infinite, immutable God.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Many times understanding the concepts around them will help you understand the covenants of covenant theology:

Covenants of:

1) redemption
2) works
3) grace

Doesn't the WCF speak of only two covenants?

AMR

 

[Scott1]

Ask Mr. Religion
Doesn't the WCF speak of only two covenants?

Yes,

But there is an assumption of what is called a covenant of redemption among the Trinity in the background.

The covenant of redemption is the perfect agreement in eternity past among the members of the Godhead- the Father elects according to the good pleasure of His will, the Son comes and effectively atones for every one of them, the Holy Spirit effectually calls each one at the appointed time.

While this covenant if often not explicitly stated, it is implicit in reformed theology.

What is Reformed Theology? by Dr RC Sproul talks about this in its role in reformed theology and implicit underpinning of covenant theology. It also helps in differentiating a dispensational framework.

 

[JTB]

Joshua,

I agree with what you said in full.

Is there a specific name for non-teleological supralapsarianism?

Reymond calls it "Supralapsarianism, historical principle" I believe. That view only changes the order of election, leaving the rest of the order as it is with infralapsarian. Teleological organizes creation as the last decree, as it is first in the temporal sequence.

-----Added 9/10/2009 at 11:48:17 EST-----

I think that instead of looking at election as determining the proper order to result in God's glory we should look at God's unchanging character and attributes since His Holiness is responsible for His Desire (in my opinion). I think this would make justice a result of sin, justice a result of righteousness, and mercy a result of Christ righteousness making mercy just.---INFRALAPSARIANISM
(I like the word INFRA better than SUPRA, I don't like the word SUPERMAN)

Charles,

Supralapsarianism is built upon God's character. While all of God's attributes are compatible or equivalent in power and order, we can, I think, rightly affirm that God's most basic characteristic is His aseity. Given the implications I listed above, I don't think infralapsarianism exemplifies this aspect of God's aseity. Supralapsarianism gives reason and purpose to each of the decrees in the most simple and consistent form. Infralapsarianism leaves counter-purposes and an unexplainable purpose for Creation (and it doesn't adequately handle the verses in the Ephesians).

-----Added 9/10/2009 at 11:52:03 EST-----

This seems like a good topic for me a relatively new reformed believer as well to pine in on a question I have regarding this and a few other debates.

When do we know if we are reading or trying to read too much into the mind of God? When you start discussing the logic and trying to figure topics such as these, where is the line?

Thanks!

It's helpful to remember to focus on reading God's Word and asking the Holy Spirit to help illuminate your understanding.

While the discussion of "infra" and "supra" might be helpful, it's really not something to focus on. Many times understanding the concepts around them will help you understand the covenants of covenant theology:

Covenants of:

1) redemption
2) works
3) grace

(In the end, none are at all dependent on "infra" or "supra" so don't unduly focus on that).

When you are talking about eternality, trying to order things temporally really becomes an academic exercise. We don't want to lose focus on the more important issues of the attributes of our infinite, immutable God.

I can agree that the infra/supra debate is not a subject matter for novices, nor is it a cornerstone doctrine, but it is not the case that the covenants are not dependent upon a particular view of infra or supra. Either all of God's decrees and acts are of one complete and logical system, or there is confusion and disconnection in the various thoughts and acts of God. All things hold together in God in some definite way, even if we are incapable of discovering just how.