Steve Paynter
Puritan Board Freshman
I ask this question partly because the supralapsarian vs infralapsarian issue kept coming up in the thread on double predestination, and partly because, whenever it does, my mind immediately goes to a comment John Frame makes in his "Doctrine of God".
Frame observes that both the lapsarian positions on the understanding of the order of God's decrees equivocate upon what relationship determines the order. In some places they focus on the teleological aim of the decree, and in other places on the "logically prior" relation.
and
My question is ... are John Frames arguments here valid? And has any progress been made in coming up with a new position which sorts out this mess?
Frame observes that both the lapsarian positions on the understanding of the order of God's decrees equivocate upon what relationship determines the order. In some places they focus on the teleological aim of the decree, and in other places on the "logically prior" relation.
In Reformed theology, the two main views of the order of the decrees are supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism. The proposed orders are:
SUPRALAPSARIAN
1. To elect some creatable people for divine blessing.
2. To create.
3. To permit the Fall.
4. To send Christ to provide atonement.
5. To send the Spirit to apply the atonement to the hearts of believers.
6. To glorify the elect.
INFRALAPSARIAN
1. To create.
2. To permit the Fall.
3. To elect some people for divine blessing.
4. Same as supra.
5. Same as supra.
6. Same as supra.
The controversy about the order of the decrees focuses on the order of the first three decrees, and on the odd supralapsarian notion of a decree to elect “creatable” people.
For defenders of the supralapsarian view, the important point is that God’s foremost concern in his decrees is to display his grace in a chosen people. Everything else is, roughly speaking, a means to that end. In order to give grace to those people, he must create them, permit the Fall, and redeem them. So decree 1 is related to the others as end to means. But decrees 2 and 3 are probably best construed as each providing the conditions necessary for the decrees after it to be accomplished. So there is no consistent pattern of order through the list. Perhaps the reason for giving priority to decree 1 over the others is that, for supralapsarians, God’s care for the elect is so much more profound than his concern for the rest of creation that the other decrees are of far lesser importance.
The infralapsarian view makes no judgment as to God’s foremost concern. It simply asks us to imagine the process as if God were thinking of the order in which events would occur. Here the governing principle is mostly what I have called condition-realization. It is therefore important to understand that the two lists have different concepts of order. (Frame, J. M. (2002). The doctrine of God. A theology of lordship (336–337). Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing.)
and
Now on neither list is there any consistent principle of “order.” The supra list begins with a decree that is prior to the others in a teleological sense. It designates the overall purpose that the other decrees bring into effect. Clearly, however, 2 and 3 on the supra list are not related teleologically nor are any other two decrees on either list. The relation between 2 and 3 on the supra list may be understood either as anticipated temporal or as presuppositional priority. The rest may be seen the same way, though it is perhaps best to see 4 as providing the moral and legal basis for 5 and 6. The infra list follows mainly a pattern of anticipated temporality, though the place of 3 represents a departure from that pattern, and, again, the relation of 4 to the others is better construed as moral-legal causality.
The whole project, then, seems rather confused, and to our modern eyes, highly speculative. (Frame, J. M. (1987). The doctrine of the knowledge of God. A theology of lordship (264). Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing.)
My question is ... are John Frames arguments here valid? And has any progress been made in coming up with a new position which sorts out this mess?
Last edited: