# Infra or Supralapsarianism



## James Swan (Mar 16, 2014)

Greetings, I haven't been here in a while. I suspect the Puritan Board is the best place to ask this question. 

I've been doing some cursory studies into the infra / supra debate. I've been sifting through some of the old CRC Acts of Synod to see how they handled the infra / supra debate. The 1908 Synod (p. 81) declared the following (earlier declared as The Conclusions of Utrecht, 1905):

In regard to the first point, infra- or supralapsarianism, Synod declares:



> that our Confessional Standards admittedly follow the infralapsarian presentation in respect to the doctrine of election, but that it is evident both from the wording of Chapter I, Article 7, of the Canons of Dort and from the deliberations of the Synod of Dort, that this is in no wise intended to exclude or condemn the supralapsarian presentation;
> 
> that it is hence not permitted to present the supralapsarian view as the doctrine of the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands, but neither, to molest anyone who personally holds the supralapsarian view inasmuch as the Synod of Dort has made no pronouncement upon this disputed point.
> 
> Furthermore, Synod adds the warning that such profound doctrines, which are far beyond the understanding of the common people, should be discussed as little as possible from the pulpit, and that one should adhere in the preaching of the Word and in catechetical instruction to the presentation offered in our Confessional Standards.



Here are my questions:

1) What particularly provoked the 1908 CRC Synod to adopt this statement from Utrecht? Are there any good texts that provide an overview of what was going on at the time that pushed this issue to a synodical statement in both Utrecht and then the CRC?

2) Other than a theological dispute, what difference is there in actual practice as to whether or not someone is infra or supra? Historically, is there a significant difference in practice that impacted the Reformed church from those holding the supralapsarian view?

3) Are there any significant Reformed denominations that are explicitly supralapsarian? After having some sparse interactions with advocates of the Netherlands Reformed Church here in NJ, i'm tempted to think they are supralapsarian.

I have my suspicions as to the answers to these questions, but I would certainly like to hear from others, particularly in regard to #2. Primarily, I'm looking for some good historical texts, particularly on the Dutch side, that explore these questions. Any suggestions?

Thanks!

James Swan


----------



## James Swan (Mar 18, 2014)

OK, since I've had around 100 views and no takers... here's a much more simplified question:

What difference does it make if someone is infralaparian or supralapsarian? For instance, is the Christian life, piety, spirituality behavior, etc. of a supralapsarian different than an infralapsarian?


----------



## Jack K (Mar 18, 2014)

James, I realize that you ask a serious question and have a commendable desire to understand what was happening in the CRC a century ago, yet I doubt there are many people who have the knowledge to give you a real answer that's more than speculation.

I'm tempted to get snarky and suggest that whatever controversy brought on that ruling was probably due to the hard-nosed Dutch proclivity to snipe at each other and to continually poke around for error and demand that others correct it. When I was a child in the CRC about 40 years ago, the debate over infra- and supralapsarianism was repeatedly held up as THE prime example of the sort of theological disagreement one should avoid coming to blows over. The fact that it was cited so often as an example of where not to bash one's brother may be some clue as to what the average CRCer thought of the 1908 debate, whatever that was. But this is just a guess.

It sounds like Synod took a reasonable, wise approach that emphasized _peaceful_ discussion.


----------



## MW (Mar 18, 2014)

James Swan said:


> What difference does it make if someone is infralaparian or supralapsarian?



One major difference in the two views relates to evil in general. Did God decree to permit the fall for the purpose of manifesting His grace and justice or did God decree to manifest His grace and justice as a consequence of the fall? One's understanding on this point is influential in how one sees various doctrines, so one's viewpoint should make a difference.

Having said that, there are also causes why the consequences of each view might not be regarded as important. There is a general dislike of metaphysical inquiry, with a feeling that it interferes with the province of biblical theology. There is also the emergence of paradox (ironically arising from a metaphysical concept), which means people sit more comfortably with inconsistencies.


----------



## James Swan (Mar 19, 2014)

Jack K said:


> James, I realize that you ask a serious question and have a commendable desire to understand what was happening in the CRC a century ago, yet I doubt there are many people who have the knowledge to give you a real answer that's more than speculation.



Hi Jack,

Thanks for the comments. I've done some work on CRC history, and I have access to all the Acts of Synod. The problem though is that they often only provide either an outcome or an overview. I have a suspicion that somewhere there's some sort of overview as to Utrecht and the CRC Synod of 1908 following along. 



Jack K said:


> I'm tempted to get snarky and suggest that whatever controversy brought on that ruling was probably due to the hard-nosed Dutch proclivity to snipe at each other and to continually poke around for error and demand that others correct it. When I was a child in the CRC about 40 years ago, the debate over infra- and supralapsarianism was repeatedly held up as THE prime example of the sort of theological disagreement one should avoid coming to blows over. The fact that it was cited so often as an example of where not to bash one's brother may be some clue as to what the average CRCer thought of the 1908 debate, whatever that was. But this is just a guess.



While I am Dutch, I was not raised in the CRC. Most of my expeditions into CRC history are driven by my desire to understand URCNA (my denomination) and the CRC tradition that still lingers. So any CRC information or personal CRC anecdotes are much appreciated. Your comment really nailed down what I've seen from studying Dutch church history, and I certainly understand the temptation to snarkiness. 



Jack K said:


> It sounds like Synod took a reasonable, wise approach that emphasized _peaceful_ discussion.



I was reading Berkof the other day referring to the CRC decision of 1905, and he appeared to me to be saying the same thing. 

Thanks again for your comments.

JS


----------



## James Swan (Mar 19, 2014)

Rev. Winzer,

Thank you as well for your comments!



armourbearer said:


> One major difference in the two views relates to evil in general. Did God decree to permit the fall for the purpose of manifesting His grace and justice or did God decree to manifest His grace and justice as a consequence of the fall? One's understanding on this point is influential in how one sees various doctrines, so one's viewpoint should make a difference.



This is kind of what I'm interested in. I've come across a number of discussions over the years of people quibbling back and forth over the infra / supra conundrum. Most of the time, it's heavy theological banter in which Reformed folks enter into on of those _the labyrinths_ that has _no exit_. I'm curious as to the effect of supralapsarianism on one's theological system, and by extension, how it effects personal piety, evangelism, Christian behavior, etc. So if you get a moment to flesh out which various doctrines you have in mind, I'd appreciate it. 

JS


----------



## py3ak (Mar 19, 2014)

James, on the historical details about the CRC I suspect that Dr. Venema would either know or would know where to look.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Mar 20, 2014)

James,

While you are exploring the topic, you may have run across Bavinck's treatment of supra and infra wherein he outlines what He sees are the potential flaws in both positions.

Just in case:

View attachment Inadequacy of Infra and Supra - Bavinck.pdf


----------



## James Swan (Mar 20, 2014)

py3ak said:


> James, on the historical details about the CRC I suspect that Dr. Venema would either know or would know where to look.



Yes, he is quite the expert on the CRC, and I would only pursue him as a last resort, as I know firsthand he is quite busy with Mid-America Reformed Seminary. 

JS


----------



## James Swan (Mar 20, 2014)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> James,
> 
> While you are exploring the topic, you may have run across Bavinck's treatment of supra and infra wherein he outlines what He sees are the potential flaws in both positions.
> 
> ...



Thanks so much for the link, I'll be reviewing it. Also, I recall you from the CARM boards. While I typically spend my CARM time with the Lutherans, I do recall you from this thread. I'd spend more time on the CARM Reformed/Presbyterian board, but it typically was overrun by schwärmerei.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Mar 20, 2014)

James Swan said:


> Ask Mr. Religion said:
> 
> 
> > James,
> ...


The doc is an extract from Bavinck's second volume of his Reformed Dogmatics's. To avoid copyright issues, I only extracted a small part of the chapter wherein he discusses the topic at length.

Well, as you can see, PB can be a welcome respite from the usual discussion sites. Why here at PB we do not even quibble about baptism, KJV translation, infra vs. supra, covenantalism, theocracy, justification, how to keep the Sabbath, young or old earth, or even Arminianism. Go ahead, start a thread on one of the topics and then get ready to experience the bliss.  

Seriously, welcome and I look forward to seeing more of you here and about.


----------



## James Swan (Mar 20, 2014)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> The doc is an extract from Bavinck's second volume of his Reformed Dogmatics's. To avoid copyright issues, I only extracted a small part of the chapter wherein he discusses the topic at length.



Thanks for the extract... I actually have vol. 1 & 2 of Bavinck. At some point I'm sure I'll pick up the rest. 



Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Well, as you can see, PB can be a welcome respite from the usual discussion sites. Why here at PB we do not even quibble about baptism, KJV translation, infra vs. supra, covenantalism, theocracy, justification, how to keep the Sabbath, young or old earth, or even Arminianism. Go ahead, start a thread on one of the topics and then get ready to experience the bliss.   Seriously, welcome and I look forward to seeing more of you here and about.



I've visited PB off and on over the years, but on some level I must enjoy the punishment the CARM boards continually inflict.


----------



## MW (Mar 20, 2014)

James Swan said:


> This is kind of what I'm interested in. I've come across a number of discussions over the years of people quibbling back and forth over the infra / supra conundrum. Most of the time, it's heavy theological banter in which Reformed folks enter into on of those _the labyrinths_ that has _no exit_. I'm curious as to the effect of supralapsarianism on one's theological system, and by extension, how it effects personal piety, evangelism, Christian behavior, etc. So if you get a moment to flesh out which various doctrines you have in mind, I'd appreciate it.



James, There are numerous issues which are centred around the relationship of sin to the attributes of God. E.g., theodicy. How can an all powerful and good God permit sin? The answer is, He ordains it for an higher good and is not bound by the creature's standard of justice and goodness. As far as I can tell the supralapsarian view has provided the theological foundation for this answer. The fall subserves the purpose of salvation in Christ. Infralapsarians who have recourse to this answer are effectively assuming the supralapsarian position. When they speak of the felix culpa (happy fault) of the first sin, they are subordinating sin to eternal destiny, which is a supralapsarian distinctive.

Another doctrine is atonement. Was it absolutely necessary? or does its necessity flow from the freedom of grace?

In the message of the gospel no question is made of election or reprobation. In the foreground the gospel is actively seeking the salvation of the hearer. But the message of salvation in Christ is a savour unto God whether it is a savour of life unto life or of death unto death. One's view of the order of the decrees affects how one understands this.

Concerning piety and Christian life, let us look at the nature of goodness. Is something good because God commands it or is it commanded because it is good? Supralapsarians consistently maintain it is good because God commands it. Infralapsarians vary.


----------



## Matthew1344 (Mar 23, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> In the message of the gospel no question is made of election or reprobation. In the foreground the gospel is actively seeking the salvation of the hearer. But the message of salvation in Christ is a savour unto God whether it is a savour of life unto life or of death unto death. One's view of the order of the decrees affects how one understands this.


 can you explain this in a different way? I am not understanding. It is not your fault. ha I know it is mine!


----------



## JimmyH (Mar 23, 2014)

These theological viewpoints were unknown to me before I came to PB. I found this excerpt from Robert Reymond's Systematic Theology helpful in understanding the concepts referred to ;

What do the terms ?supralapsarianism,? and ?infralapsarianism? mean, and does the bible teach one or the other?


----------



## NB3K (Mar 23, 2014)

Please excuse me for being a bit off-topic, but I have question, which is related to the subject. 


Is it possible for both positions to be true? Because God's ways are way higher than what my mind can comprehend.


----------



## earl40 (Mar 23, 2014)

NB3K said:


> Please excuse me for being a bit off-topic, but I have question, which is related to the subject.
> 
> 
> Is it possible for both positions to be true? Because God's ways are way higher than what my mind can comprehend.



in my opinion no.  Infra has God "contemplating after" the fall to decide who He will save. Supra has God "contemplating before" the fall who will like the goodness of The Gospel and those who will think the savour of The Gospel is not good.


----------



## MW (Mar 23, 2014)

Matthew1344 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > In the message of the gospel no question is made of election or reprobation. In the foreground the gospel is actively seeking the salvation of the hearer. But the message of salvation in Christ is a savour unto God whether it is a savour of life unto life or of death unto death. One's view of the order of the decrees affects how one understands this.
> ...



No problem. We might think of the statement, Many are called, few are chosen. The Gospel is a revelation of God, but it does not reveal everything about God. There is something which remains hidden from us. This leads us to believe that the design of the Gospel is one thing and the design of God in giving the Gospel is another. The Gospel actively seeks the salvation of its hearers -- the called. God gives the Gospel to save the elect -- the chosen.


----------



## KGP (Apr 18, 2014)

Rev. Winzer, I haven't been around long enough to recall your personal position on this issue. Supra, I'm guessing, from your responses here. Care to confirm or deny?


----------



## PhillipJLee (Apr 18, 2014)

Great topic -- for those who like charts, see here: Notes on Supralapsarianism & Infralapsarianism

I don't want to hijack this thread but could I also ask how Amyraldism relates to the both? I am specifically wondering how I could defend against Amyraldism using Covenant Theology?


----------



## Edward (Apr 18, 2014)

PhillipJLee said:


> for those who like charts


Thanks


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Apr 26, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> Matthew1344 said:
> 
> 
> > armourbearer said:
> ...



Now where's my "like" button?


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Apr 26, 2014)

Infra here...

Now, this debate is needless, in my opinion. Regardless the position, God elects, God regenerates, God converts, and God will glorify His elect. We are to rest in this. I rest in this, and whether infra or supra rings true, I have no clue...I see support for both, but more for infra. Regardless, I won't debate this.


----------



## One Little Nail (Apr 26, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> Another doctrine is atonement. Was it absolutely necessary? or does its necessity flow from the freedom of grace?



Matt can you elaborate on this, I think Supra is the more correct view, though I would say both of the above are true,
that is Christ had to be born of a woman & born under the Law to fulfil its demands (which is death) so that the freedom of Grace ,as you say, may have a free course, this grace is a satisfaction, is it not. am I seeing this correctly

Didn't Owen the Infra write a treatise on Psalm 130 to rebuke the Supra views of Rutherford on this point if Im not mistaken.


----------



## MW (Apr 27, 2014)

KGP said:


> Rev. Winzer, I haven't been around long enough to recall your personal position on this issue. Supra, I'm guessing, from your responses here. Care to confirm or deny?



Christological supralapsarian, which means the order of the decrees serves the purpose of glorifying Christ as the Head of creation. I believe this puts the emphasis and focus where the Scripture places it. It also removes the difficulties connected with individual destiny of persons who are not yet considered as being created.


----------



## MW (Apr 27, 2014)

One Little Nail said:


> I think Supra is the more correct view, though I would say both of the above are true,
> that is Christ had to be born of a woman & born under the Law to fulfil its demands (which is death) so that the freedom of Grace ,as you say, may have a free course, this grace is a satisfaction, is it not. am I seeing this correctly
> 
> Didn't Owen the Infra write a treatise on Psalm 130 to rebuke the Supra views of Rutherford on this point if Im not mistaken.





All reformed theologians teach the necessity of the atonement. The question is whether it is necessary because God has decreed it for wise and holy purposes or because the nature of justice absolutely requires it. The voluntarists maintained that if justice absolutely demands it the soul that sins must die and there is no place for a Surety or for any equivalent payment. Furthermore, if justice is absolutely satisfied by the death of Christ then the sins of all men have been satisfied by Christ because of the intrinsic value of Christ's death. In contrast the Reformed teach that Christ satisfies the justice of God for some men and not others because of the purpose of God to save the elect and pass by others.

Owen first held the same position as Rutherford but changed his mind in light of the Socinian controversy. This change is reflected in his dissertation on divine justice.


----------



## One Little Nail (Apr 28, 2014)

Thanks for your reply Pastor Matthew



armourbearer said:


> The voluntarists maintained that if justice absolutely demands it the soul that sins must die and there is no place for a Surety or for any equivalent payment.



Who are the voluntarists?, this view would seem to deny the Atonement, even the arminians wouldn't espouse this, 
this could not even be regarded as a christian statement or part of the christian religion.




armourbearer said:


> Furthermore, if justice is absolutely satisfied by the death of Christ then the sins of all men have been satisfied by Christ because of the intrinsic value of Christ's death



Well yes the Reformed view as you have stated has Christ satisfying the Elects (some mens) sins, which is definitely the
Scriptural view, absolute satisfaction would be a form of Universalism that I have never heard espoused as they tend say
that those who have not been redeemed in this life endure a period of purifying suffering in fire & then are redeemed afterwards though there may be many varieties, Im not familiar with all these, & then you have the hypothetical Universalists like pelagian, semi-Pelagians, remonstrance & wesleyan arminians, & others types as well, who do say that Christ has effectively paid the price for everybody though the onus seems to be on the sinner adding his faith to the mix to make it effectual! you could even throw in amyraldians & other such 4 point "calvinists" into the mix I suppose.




armourbearer said:


> Owen first held the same position as Rutherford but changed his mind in light of the Socinian controversy. This change is reflected in his dissertation on divine justice.



Did Owen publish anything on this view when he held it previously, his english works seem to have only 2 of the 5 main calvinistic points espoused at the Synod of Dort ie; Limited Atonement & Perseverance of the Saints , apart from his 
Display of arminianism which is a more general work, & there doesn't seem to be a treatise on Predestination/Election.




armourbearer said:


> Christological supralapsarian, which means the order of the decrees serves the purpose of glorifying Christ as the Head of creation. I believe this puts the emphasis and focus where the Scripture places it. It also removes the difficulties connected with individual destiny of persons who are not yet considered as being created.



Do you know what the major supra schemes are that have previously prevailed in or do now prevail in the Reformed community, & what theological books could you recommend that outline/summarize these views, regards.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 28, 2014)

One Little Nail said:


> Who are the voluntarists?, this view would seem to deny the Atonement, even the arminians wouldn't espouse this,
> this could not even be regarded as a christian statement or part of the christian religion.



The following are some of those who have expressed voluntarist sentiments:
Aurelius Augustine
John Calvin
Amandus Polanus
William Ames
Thomas Goodwin
Samuel Rutherford
William Twisse
Matthew Henry
John Owen (in his early days)


----------



## nick (Apr 28, 2014)

convicted1 said:


> Regardless the position, God elects, God regenerates, God converts, and God will glorify His elect. We are to rest in this.



Amen.


----------



## ZackF (Apr 28, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> KGP said:
> 
> 
> > Rev. Winzer, I haven't been around long enough to recall your personal position on this issue. Supra, I'm guessing, from your responses here. Care to confirm or deny?
> ...




As articulate as ever. Supra has been my position but I've never been able to say this succinctly.


----------



## MW (Apr 28, 2014)

Robert, I am having difficulty identifying what you mean by "this" in "this could not even be regarded as a christian statement or part of the christian religion." Does this refer to the voluntarist argument or to the position it argues against?

For John Owen's earlier view one may consult Death of Death, Works, 10:205:



> The foundation of this whole assertion seems to me to be false and erroneous, — namely, that God could not have mercy on mankind unless satisfaction were made by his Son. It is true, indeed, supposing the decree, purpose, and constitution of God that so it should be, that so he would manifest his glory, by the way of vindicative justice, it was impossible that it should otherwise be; for with the Lord there is "no variableness, neither shadow of turning," James i. 17; 1 Sam. xv. 29: but to assert positively, that absolutely and antecedently to his constitution he could not have done it, is to me an unwritten tradition, the Scripture affirming no such thing, neither can it be gathered from thence in any good consequence. If any one shall deny this, we will try what the Lord will enable us to say unto it, and in the meantime rest contented in that of Augustine: "Though other ways of saving us were not wanting to his infinite wisdom, yet certainly the way which he did proceed in was the most convenient, because we find he proceeded therein."



It might also be observed that although Owen changed his mind on this particular point, he did not alter his fundamental belief that all goodness towards the creature comes from a voluntary act of God's will. As he wrote in Christologia, Works, 1:59:



> As wisdom is the directive principle of all divine operations, so goodness is the communicative principle that is effectual in them. He is good, and he doth good — yea, he doth good because he is good, and for no other reason — *not by the necessity of nature*, *but by the intervention of a free act of his will*. His goodness is absolutely infinite, essentially perfect in itself; which it could not be if it belonged unto it, naturally and necessarily, to act and communicate itself unto any thing without God himself. The divine nature is eternally satisfied in and with its own goodness; but it is that principle which is the immediate fountain of all the communications of good unto others, by a free act of the will of God.


----------



## One Little Nail (Apr 28, 2014)

py3ak said:


> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> > Who are the voluntarists?, this view would seem to deny the Atonement, even the arminians wouldn't espouse this,
> ...



Thanks Ruben, I think I have misunderstood Matthews quote.


----------



## One Little Nail (Apr 29, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> The voluntarists maintained that if justice absolutely demands it the soul that sins must die and there is no place for a Surety or for any equivalent payment.





One Little Nail said:


> Who are the voluntarists?, this view would seem to deny the Atonement, even the arminians wouldn't espouse this,
> this could not even be regarded as a christian statement or part of the christian religion.





armourbearer said:


> Robert, I am having difficulty identifying what you mean by "this" in "this could not even be regarded as a christian statement or part of the christian religion." Does this refer to the voluntarist argument or to the position it argues against?




My apologies Matthew, I misunderstood the post, I thought you wrote that voluntarists denied the necessity of the Atonement in an ABSOLUTE sense, please disregard my statement. could you elaborate on that statement that
"The voluntarists maintained that if justice absolutely demands it the soul that sins must die and there is no place for a Surety or for any equivalent payment." regards


----------



## MW (Apr 29, 2014)

One Little Nail said:


> My apologies Matthew, I misunderstood the post, I thought you wrote that voluntarists denied the necessity of the Atonement in an ABSOLUTE sense, please disregard my statement. could you elaborate on that statement that
> "The voluntarists maintained that if justice absolutely demands it the soul that sins must die and there is no place for a Surety or for any equivalent payment." regards



Robert, no problem.

Basically, the covenant of works required perfect, personal, and perpetual obedience. The death which it threatened was personal death. So justice demands the soul that sinneth it shall die. If justice absolutely demands satisfaction it absolutely demands such satisfaction from the individual person who is guilty. Divine grace provides and accepts the satisfaction from a Surety. This fact in and of itself demonstrates that the necessity of satisfaction does not arise from the nature of strict justice. It is the decree of God which purposes how justice will be satisfied and grace manifested according to the good pleasure of His will.


----------



## chatwithstumac (Apr 30, 2014)

James Swan said:


> Other than a theological dispute, what difference is there in actual practice as to whether or not someone is infra or supra? Historically, is there a significant difference in practice that impacted the Reformed church from those holding the supralapsarian view?



If you can find it, pick up R.B. Kuiper's "As To Being Reformed." 

I don't think this book directly speaks of the infra/supra debate but it does speak about his reasoning for flip flopping from CRC to Reformed Church of America back to CRC in the early 1920's. R.B. Kuiper was at one time President of Calvin College.

In Christ, 
Stu


----------

