# Supralapsarianism & Infralapsarianism



## "William The Baptist" (Mar 16, 2012)

It's been a while since I've started a thread... and I think this is the right place?

I had someone ask me a few months back what my position was on Supralapsarianism & Infralapsarianism and why, but I hadn't studied into it and only quickly looked up what each terms meant. 

Can anyone tell me the main differences about each?

Thanks


----------



## N. Eshelman (Mar 16, 2012)

Here's Robert Reymond's break down from his Systematic Theology, pp. 479-489: 



> *Infralapsarianism*
> 1. the decree to create the world and (all) men
> 2. the decree that (all) men would fall
> 3. the election of some fallen men to salvation in Christ (and the reprobation of the others)
> ...



It's important to remember that the discussion is a before time, in God's mind, in his eternal decree question. Some people hear this and they think that this discussion happens in time. All of this is before creation and in the mind of our Triune God. If you have access to a Systematic Theology (Berkhoff, Hodge, etc) they will break it down further. And remember that there are solid, confessional, reformed teachers on both sides of the discussion.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Mar 16, 2012)

N. Eshelman said:


> It's important to remember that the discussion is a before time, in God's mind, in his eternal decree question



Althought I never looked too deeply into this I always wondered about this, can God eternal decrees have a chronological sequence (not in the execution of them but in the order there appear in his mind)? Wouldn't this mean that God's mind is bound by time and that there was time before the creation?

Is there any scriptural support for these postions?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Mar 16, 2012)

R.L. Dabney said it best when he declared that he wished the church had never asked this question.


----------



## FenderPriest (Mar 16, 2012)

As usual, Bavinck will set you on the right path with this question: Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 1: Prolegomena. In essence, bah humbug on the distinction and let's be Biblical about it. John Frame has good things to say on this as well in The Doctrine of God I believe.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Mar 16, 2012)

The way I see it if his decrees are eternal they are just that eternal, meaning they would have to be in God's mind all the time therefore meaning they are "simultaneously" eternal. They would have a sequence in their fullfillment within time but not in their planning phase.

But maybe I'm missing something.


----------



## A5pointer (Mar 16, 2012)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> R.L. Dabney said it best when he declared that he wished the church had never asked this question.



This is how I have felt. When people ask me which I am, I answer Supra. But I have wondered if it is a question we should be asking. We like nice neat systematic answers to our questions but should we poke into every corner especially if it borders on speculation.


----------



## py3ak (Mar 16, 2012)

It's a question about logic. A frequently-cited maxim is, "What is first in intention is last in execution." 
I believe that when it is not considered abstractly, but brought into connection with Christ that the path to a solution lies open. Adam was, before the fall, a figure of him who was to come: Adam was created for the sake of Christ. That points in a supralapsarian direction.
But I think that some supralapsarians have not done a good job answering objections or stating the position. Thomas Goodwin is a solid exponent of Christological supralapsarianism.


----------



## lynnie (Mar 16, 2012)

Go Bavinck. Both are wrong because the decrees are eternal and not chronological. In Vol 2 of RD he rips holes in both infra and supra. Neither position ultimately holds up.

There are things that happen in time. You converted in time and repented in time and believed in time. Jesus died and rose and ascended in time. And God did decree that this creation in time exists, and He did decree that certain things take place in created timely order. But that does not mean that his decrees happened one after the other when such decrees are part of the eternal infinite nature of God. Those eternal decrees coexisted forever simultaneously.


----------



## Peairtach (Mar 16, 2012)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> R.L. Dabney said it best when he declared that he wished the church had never asked this question.


----------



## Andres (Mar 16, 2012)

So the consensus seems to be that it's a dumb question. Leah, please be sure you go back and tell whomever asked you the question that it's a dumb question.


----------



## py3ak (Mar 16, 2012)

Andres said:


> So the consensus seems to be that it's a dumb question. Leah, please be sure you go back and tell whomever asked you the question that it's a dumb question.



It is a dumb question if it's presented as a question about the chronological ordering of an eternal decree. But if it's presented that way, I think the fault lies more with the presenter than with the actual question. Very astute theologians devoted considerable intellectual effort to discussing the matter. Although Turretin winds up taking an infralapsarian position, I think his discussion is quite good and valuable.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 16, 2012)

Perhaps it is not a "dumb" question, but (like too many things) a "fuzzy" answer to a difficult topic doesn't satisfy enough people--even if all we humans can hope for is a "fuzzy" answer.

Reformed Theology is "rigorous," that is, it presses the hard questions and seeks the clearest Scriptural answers, and receives that teaching submissively no matter how much the response challenges the natural (i.e. fallen) mind. Most people who reject, say, the doctrine of predestination don't do so because it isn't biblical (after all, the plain term is part of the text); but because they don't LIKE the facts or implications of the doctrine, and *voila* it must not be true (because, heaven knows if I don't LIKE something, it must not be so...).

But RT in its truest form has always had sufficient room to admit the limits of theology. Just because a question can be raised, thought about in relation to biblical data, and an answer offered, does not mean that a black-and-white, "rigorous" answer is available. The answer given may be "tentative," and must be "tentative" perhaps forever. How unfortunate, therefore, if the "tentative" answer is turned into a test of orthodoxy, or hardens into the "correct" answer for a given "camp" within RT. This is the objection that I believe stands behind Dabney's wistful observation that the energy expended in fighting for the "truth" of the matter is largely futile.

The infra/supra answers are essentially two ways of approaching the same question: one more "historical" (infralapsarian), the other more "logical" (supralapsarian). An argument over which of these is "better" isn't necessarily faulty, until it becomes abusive. If "logic" succeeds in marginalizing "history" as insignificant, it is a Pyrrhic victory of abstraction over creation. "History" has concrete lessons for airy constructs. If "history" marginalizes "logic," it likewise sacrifices the benefit that the Present or Future has in "informing," "judging," or "ordering" the Past. Both notions divided against one another are "linear" in their approach. But the subject with which both are interested (the mind of God) is not linear but whole (or omnidimensional), and defies human limits.

God accommodates his revelation to man, and his creaturely limitations. Therefore, it is possible to build sound and reliable theological constructions from the materials of special revelation, linear concepts slowly building a "whole" edifice, or a "whole" revelation: "For it is precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little," Is.28:10. This is the way we gain true understanding.

But on some questions we are left (again, maybe everlastingly) with a "Heisenberg principle" or a "wave/particle conundrum" (see a physics textbook), but in the realm of theology. And why should this be "bad"? It imposes a lesson on us that we must stop at the bounds God sets for us, and not travel beyond them. In the end, the infra/supra debate ought to be a lesson in humility.


----------



## Andres (Mar 16, 2012)

It's common knowledge that this smiley after a sentence indicates the writer is speaking in jest. Come on Ruben.


----------



## Jack K (Mar 16, 2012)

"William The Baptist" said:


> I had someone ask me a few months back what my position was on Supralapsarianism & Infralapsarianism and why



Are you sure it was a serious question? In my experience, it's one of those that comes up when people want to poke fun (sometimes good-naturedly) at what is seen to be theological nitpicking.


----------



## py3ak (Mar 16, 2012)

I didn't think you thought that, Andres. I was commenting on the consensus that had been collected so far.

The topic has been discussed before.

This thread helpfully points out that it is emphatically not a question of chronology, not a question of God deciding one thing and then another; it is a question of which things are ends and which things are means.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/infralapsarian-vs-supralapsarian-14455/

This thread contains some informative remarks on the views of the Westminster Assembly:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/supralapsarianism-infralapsarianism-57835/

This thread is mostly about the importance of the question:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/infralapsarianism-supralapsarianism-practical-implications-52597/

This thread also contains some useful information and recapitulation of other discussions:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/you-supra-infra-why-67895/

This post gives an excellent, brief overview of the matter:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/lapsarianism-39025/#post484403

Here I try to explain myself:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/correct-66368/


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Mar 16, 2012)

py3ak said:


> didn't think you thought that, Andres. I was commenting on the consensus that had been collected so far.
> 
> The topic has been discussed before.
> 
> ...



Thanks for posting these, I had never spend much time on this subject, it is true that if you look at it in a logical order rather than chronological one and study the ends and the means it make more sense and can add value.


----------



## baron (Mar 16, 2012)

Here is a great book on the subject. If you have a Kindle its only $.99.

The Plan of Salvation by Warfield. See link.

Amazon.com: the plan of salvation warfield: Kindle Store


----------



## py3ak (Mar 16, 2012)

This might be the most helpful thread on the matter - it didn't come up in my earlier search.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/objections-supralapsarianism-42846/

It addresses what has always seemed to me like the strongest position of the infralapsarians - that decrees made about the destination of a creature presuppose a decree for it to exist.


----------



## jwright82 (Mar 16, 2012)

I like how Turretin handles it by pointing out that the question is one of us humans logically working this out in terms that we can best make sense of but that the reality is it is all mysterious and of course all the decrees were decreed from all eternity together.


----------



## MW (Mar 16, 2012)

It is inconsistent for a Calvinist to claim that the order of the decrees does not matter. A Calvinist has already determined that order does matter because he places the decree of faith in a specific order to the decree to save, and thereby rejects Arminianism.

Robert Reymond's order does not reflect supralapsarianism.


----------



## Peairtach (Mar 16, 2012)

py3ak said:


> It's a question about logic. A frequently-cited maxim is, "What is first in intention is last in execution."
> I believe that when it is not considered abstractly, but brought into connection with Christ that the path to a solution lies open. Adam was, before the fall, a figure of him who was to come: Adam was created for the sake of Christ. That points in a supralapsarian direction.
> But I think that some supralapsarians have not done a good job answering objections or stating the position. Thomas Goodwin is a solid exponent of Christological supralapsarianism.



Where does the decree that God would eternally become the Salvific Man, come in? This seems very central, to say the least.



> Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men. (Proverbs 8:31)


----------



## Jesus is my friend (Mar 16, 2012)

Great question,great responses.


----------



## "William The Baptist" (Mar 17, 2012)

py3ak said:


> Andres said:
> 
> 
> > So the consensus seems to be that it's a dumb question. Leah, please be sure you go back and tell whomever asked you the question that it's a dumb question.
> ...






Jack K said:


> Are you sure it was a serious question? In my experience, it's one of those that comes up when people want to poke fun (sometimes good-naturedly) at what is seen to be theological nitpicking.



Actually, I'm not really sure who asked it and what their motives were... I have a blog and post a lot of reformed things and people can ask questions anonymously or through their user name. He previously asked me about predestination. *shrugs*

---------- Post added at 04:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:01 PM ----------




Contra_Mundum said:


> Perhaps it is not a "dumb" question, but (like too many things) a "fuzzy" answer to a difficult topic doesn't satisfy enough people--even if all we humans can hope for is a "fuzzy" answer.
> 
> Reformed Theology is "rigorous," that is, it presses the hard questions and seeks the clearest Scriptural answers, and receives that teaching submissively no matter how much the response challenges the natural (i.e. fallen) mind. Most people who reject, say, the doctrine of predestination don't do so because it isn't biblical (after all, the plain term is part of the text); but because they don't LIKE the facts or implications of the doctrine, and *voila* it must not be true (because, heaven knows if I don't LIKE something, it must not be so...).
> 
> ...



Thanks for these thoughts. I feel like most of reformed theology is quite humbling. It seems the more I study, learn, and grow... the more I am humbled and think about how little I know and how many years were wasted in my previous churches. "*it must not be true (because, heaven knows if I don't LIKE something, it must not be so...).*"... I find this to be true in a LOT of my non reformed friends, and I find I struggle in wanting to be gracious (and avoid being the mean Calvinist yet still being bold in biblical truth. 

I guess it's not so much I want to have the right answer on this one, but rather I want to learn and understand in all areas, even if this one is less central to pressing discussions amongst my friends. 

I've appreciated all the responses and dialog. It's good to be back on the PB.


----------



## Andres (Mar 17, 2012)

"William The Baptist" said:


> I've appreciated all the responses and dialog. It's good to be back on the PB.



We missed you too! Would your beloved Samuel have any interest in joining the board? I don't know which other members I may be speaking for, but I eagerly anticipate seeing those wedding photos soon!


----------



## rookie (Mar 17, 2012)

I remember someone dodging the topic of Supra/Infra some time ago, and just called it Atemporalapsarianism. He was basically saying that since the Triune God decreed everything outside of "time", that we couldn't put a chronological order on how the decrees really happened...

---------- Post added at 08:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:05 PM ----------

I remember someone dodging the topic of Supra/Infra some time ago, and just called it Atemporalapsarianism. He was basically saying that since the Triune God decreed everything outside of "time", that we couldn't put a chronological order on how the decrees really happened...


----------



## "William The Baptist" (Mar 17, 2012)

Andres said:


> "William The Baptist" said:
> 
> 
> > I've appreciated all the responses and dialog. It's good to be back on the PB.
> ...



I was actually talking to him about the PB yesterday  It may be a while before he joins...if he joins. He said he would love to and likes the idea of it. Right now in the work he has, the season he is in, and all he needs to get done in a day, his left over time barely has time for the computer. But maybe once we are settled into our home we can mimic Ruben and Heidi and both on the PB discussing on the same forum! haha  But in a non nagging way, I hope to allure him to the wonderful PB and convince him to join one day.

But I will definitely post pictures! It's so soon! It always makes me (more) excited when others get excited too!


----------



## py3ak (Mar 18, 2012)

Peairtach said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > It's a question about logic. A frequently-cited maxim is, "What is first in intention is last in execution."
> ...



If there is anything more comprehensive than that I think it would have to be simply God's purpose to manifest his glory.


----------



## Jesus is my friend (Apr 4, 2012)

Good article here on the Supra position from Vincent Cheung.

Vincent Cheung .com » Supralapsarianism

---------- Post added at 10:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:01 PM ----------



I love Reymond (no joke intended) Rev Winzer,can you help me understand how he would differ form the majority view within the Supra camp.I'm sorry I can't seem to pull up your post to quote you properly


----------



## MW (Apr 4, 2012)

Jesus is my friend said:


> Rev Winzer,can you help me understand how he would differ form the majority view within the Supra camp.I'm sorry I can't seem to pull up your post to quote you properly



Let's recall the basic starting point of the discussion. Supra = above. Infra = below. Lapse = the fall. Election is of men (and angels). Now, supralapsarianism refers to the election of men considered as unfallen, and infralapsarianism refers to the election of men considered as fallen. These are our basic definitions for being able to distinguish between the two points of view. Dr. Reymond comes along and says he is a supralapsarian, and a consistent one at that, but then begins with the premise that "God elected some *sinful* men ... to salvation in Christ" (New Systematic Theology, 494, 495). It is clear that he has lost his bearings somewhere in the long walk on which he has taken his readers.


----------



## Jesus is my friend (Apr 4, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> Jesus is my friend said:
> 
> 
> > Rev Winzer,can you help me understand how he would differ form the majority view within the Supra camp.I'm sorry I can't seem to pull up your post to quote you properly
> ...



Thanks so much for explaining that for me


----------

