# Supralapsarianism or Infralapsarianism??



## Idelette (Jan 19, 2010)

I was just curious to find out what the majority of people lean towards today. I know we did a similar poll a while ago, but it wasn't dealing specifically with lapsarianism. Do you lean more towards supra, infra, or reject both?


----------



## Herald (Jan 19, 2010)

Yvonne, do you want to make this a poll? I can do it for you if you'd like.


----------



## Idelette (Jan 19, 2010)

I think I just created it, do you see it on your end Bill?


----------



## au5t1n (Jan 19, 2010)

I see it. But I can't vote because I'm not sure.


----------



## Idelette (Jan 19, 2010)

austinww said:


> I see it. But I can't vote because I'm not sure.


 
Thanks for telling me Austin!


----------



## Herald (Jan 19, 2010)

Yvonne, it's there.


----------



## yeutter (Jan 19, 2010)

I heard Dr. Gerstner make the case for infralapsarianism and have read Revd. Hoeksema's case for supralapsarianism. I still have not seen a compelling case from scripture. Both the Westminster and the 3 Forms of Unity seem to be infralapsarian. Our Primitive Baptist friends have written covenants that are plainly supralapsarian. I confess I am not sure what difference it makes?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jan 19, 2010)

Louis Berkhof in his Systematic Theology gives a good pro/con discussion on this issue.


----------



## rbcbob (Jan 19, 2010)

Does not the supralapsarian theory posit that God created a portion of humanity *for* damnation?


----------



## Idelette (Jan 19, 2010)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Louis Berkhof in his Systematic Theology gives a good pro/con discussion on this issue.


 
Thanks for posting that, I've read His "Summary of Christian Doctrine" but I am curious to read what he has to say on this topic.


----------



## AThornquist (Jan 19, 2010)

If God in eternity past elected some for salvation that would conversely mean that he did indeed create a portion of humanity for damnation, doesn't it? I voted supra, but I really don't know either way.

Edit - Maybe God didn't create a portion of humanity "for" damnation but likewise knew that this portion would not be saved, so in either case made a people that would end in damnation. Is that a correct statement? And, is the differentiation here important?


----------



## Idelette (Jan 19, 2010)

rbcbob said:


> Does not the supralapsarian theory posit that God created a portion of humanity *for* damnation?


 
Yes, I think that is the main difference that causes some contention.


----------



## MW (Jan 19, 2010)

I am a Christological supralapsarian in the tradition of Rutherford and Goodwin. I believe Christ is the firstborn of every creature and head of all things, elect and reprobate, Col. 1; I believe Adam was created as a type of the Perfect Man having lordship over all, Hebrews 2; I believe the creation of the first Adam as a living being was necessarily preliminary to the spiritual order coming through the second Adam who is a quickening spirit, 1 Cor. 15; I believe the condemnation and death of the covenant of works was intended to typify the justification and life of the covenant of grace, Rom. 5:12-21. As such, the perfect humanity, heavenly order, and covenant mediation of Christ must be viewed as the end for which man, the earthly order, and the covenant of works were created.


----------



## TeachingTulip (Jan 20, 2010)

rbcbob said:


> Does not the supralapsarian theory posit that God created a portion of humanity *for* damnation?



My husband and I are Supralapsarians, which means we believe God decreed to elect a portion of sinful humanity to be saved in Christ, before He created the world.

According to the WCF, God "predestined" the elect to everlasting life and "foreordained" the guilty to everlasting death.

The divines supposedly were mostly infralapsarians, but there has never been reason given (that I know of) that says supralapsarians cannot agree and hold to this very careful and wise use of language.


----------



## Romans 8 Verse 28 (Jan 20, 2010)

Idelette said:


> I was just curious to find out what the majority of people lean towards today. I know we did a similar poll a while ago, but it wasn't dealing specifically with lapsarianism. Do you lean more towards supra, infra, or reject both?


 
I voted that I "reject both" because I agree with R. L. Dabney who stated: "This is a question which ought never to have been raised". 

Interestingly, it's often assumed that I'm supralapsarian due to my stated positions here. It seems many today hold that one must be supralapsarian (and worse, hyper-Calvinist) if you reject "common grace" in any way. And that includes just a disagreement over terms, as is often the case on the PB, In my humble opinion. But I regard that idea as stupid and false, and at least sometimes lacking in charity. So in summary, I actually reject the whole debate, because I find it too often speculative where God's Word is silent.


----------



## Prufrock (Jan 20, 2010)

Ronda, the infralapsarian also strongly affirms what you have stated -- that God decreed to elect a portion of sinful humanity to be saved in Christ, before he created the world. It is not a question of temporal order. In fact, your language of electing a portion of sinful humanity, while it could be said by a supralapsarian, is at least clothed in infralapsarian language.


----------



## rbcbob (Jan 20, 2010)

TeachingTulip said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> > Does not the supralapsarian theory posit that God created a portion of humanity *for* damnation?
> ...



Romans 9 seems to speak of one common pool of lost humanity-



> Romans 9:21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?





> Matthew Henry comments:
> (1.) He gives us the comparison, v. 21. The potter, out of the same lump, may make either a fashionable vessel…, or a contemptible vessel, ….
> (2.) The application of the comparison, v. 22-24. Two sorts of vessels God forms out of the great lump of fallen mankind:-- [1.] Vessels of wrath--…. [2.] Vessels of mercy-


----------



## Christusregnat (Jan 20, 2010)

I'm part of the "kinder gentler supralapsarian tradition". We don't let word out too often, but Beza's my homie!


----------



## TeachingTulip (Jan 20, 2010)

Prufrock said:


> Ronda, the infralapsarian also strongly affirms what you have stated -- that God decreed to elect a portion of sinful humanity to be saved in Christ, before he created the world. It is not a question of temporal order. In fact, your language of electing a portion of sinful humanity, while it could be said by a supralapsarian, is at least clothed in infralapsarian language.



Only in that we view God _discriminating among men viewed as sinners,_ (which is indeed part of the Infra view), _before the decree that man should fall. _ 

Contrasting with the infralapsarians placing the decree of Godly election after the decree of the fall of man.

Dr. Robert Reymond acknowledges the validity of our Supra view, in his "Systematic Theology Of The Christian Faith" by accurately listing our understanding of the Godly decrees, in this order:

_"1. The election of some sinful men to salvation in Christ (and the reprobation of the rest of sinful mankind, in order to make known the riches of God's gracious mercy to the elect).

2. The decree to apply Christ's redemptive benefits to the elect sinners.

3. The decree to redeem the elect sinners by the cross work of Christ.

4. The decree that men should fall.

5. The decree to create the world and men."_ 

(Please review pages 488-492)

This is the same order held (possibly) by Jerome Zanchius, Johannes Piscator, Herman Hoeksema and Gordon Clark, with which we concur.


----------



## rbcbob (Jan 20, 2010)

TeachingTulip said:


> Prufrock said:
> 
> 
> > Ronda, the infralapsarian also strongly affirms what you have stated -- that God decreed to elect a portion of sinful humanity to be saved in Christ, before he created the world. It is not a question of temporal order. In fact, your language of electing a portion of sinful humanity, while it could be said by a supralapsarian, is at least clothed in infralapsarian language.
> ...


 
Lapsarian differences aside, the five point order of decrees above is a _Non sequitur_ as it is inconsistent with logical order. The order has #1 (sinful men) in God's will prior to there being men at all. So too with # 2 and 3.


----------



## TeachingTulip (Jan 20, 2010)

rbcbob said:


> TeachingTulip said:
> 
> 
> > Prufrock said:
> ...



The hypothesis being, that the temporal manifests God's eternal order, in reverse.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jan 20, 2010)

Idelette said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > Louis Berkhof in his Systematic Theology gives a good pro/con discussion on this issue.
> ...



Without giving it all away () Berkhof basically says that the Confessions allow for both views but tend to side more with the Infralapsarians.


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 20, 2010)

I'm infra. 

I don't see according to Scripture (since we are talking about logical order) how God can logically decree those who are predestined and those who are reprobate before they He even decrees to create them. And how can He predestine them and decree them to be reprobate before He has decreed the fall. Since we are talking about logical order (outside of time), these are the main reasons I am infra.

Supra's typically use Romans 9 as a Scriptural source, however Romans 9 seems to compare the decree of God and the birth of two (Jacob and Esau) which is in time rather than comparing the decree of election as well as the decree of creation (birth). Just some thoughts...

I also believe the Confession as stated above allows for both views, since the Divines held both views. But I think it leans towards infra. because you can see it in the language of preterition, where God 'passes by' those whom He did not elect letting them fall into their own sin. Showing that the decree of election logically followed the decree of the fall.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Jan 20, 2010)

This is something I don't think it is possible for us to know given the revelation we have. However, logically I fall more into the Supralapsarian camp based on my perception of God's omnipotence and omnicience, even though I think it falls far short of any realistic definition of what God has done. Since he knows everything he has always known what he would decree. So the order doesn't matter. God is immutable so he never changed his mind or learned anything. Everything works out according to his purpose and will.


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 20, 2010)

I wonder if some people don't understand the infralapsarian position.

As an infralapsarian, I also believe in God's complete sovereignty, omnipotence, omniscience. I also believe that God decreed those who He would elect, and those whom would be reprobate.


----------



## Idelette (Jan 20, 2010)

Romans922 said:


> I also believe the Confession as stated above allows for both views, since the Divines held both views. But I think it leans towards infra. because you can see it in the language of preterition, where God 'passes by' those whom He did not elect letting them fall into their own sin. Showing that the decree of election logically followed the decree of the fall.


 
Thanks for your input here. I do have a question for you or anyone who may happen to know. When people say that the majority of the Westminster Divines were infra....is that based on the language of the WCF or historical knowledge of the Westminster men?? I haven't been able to find a conclusive answer to this question yet.


----------



## TeachingTulip (Jan 20, 2010)

Idelette said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> > I also believe the Confession as stated above allows for both views, since the Divines held both views. But I think it leans towards infra. because you can see it in the language of preterition, where God 'passes by' those whom He did not elect letting them fall into their own sin. Showing that the decree of election logically followed the decree of the fall.
> ...



Hi Yvonne,

Here is an interesting insight as to the workings of the divines:

". . . Framed, as it (WCF) was, by men of distinguished learning and ability, who were thoroughly conversant with the history of the Church from the earliest times till the period in which they lived it, it contains the calm and settled judgments of these profound divines on all previous heresies and subjects of controversy which had in any age or country agitated the Church. This it does without expressly naming even one of these heresies (the great Antichristian system alone excepted), or entering into mere controversy. Each error is condemned, not by a direct statement and refutation of it, but by a clear, definite, and strong statement of the converse truth. 

There was, in this mode of exhibiting the truth, singular wisdom combined with equally singular modesty.  Every thing of an irritating nature is suppressed, and the pure and simple truth alone displayed; while there is not only no ostentatious parade of superior learning, but even a concealment of learning the most accurate and profound.

A hasty or superficial reader of the Confession of Faith will scarcely perceive that, in some of its apparently simple propositions, he is perusing an acute and conclusive refutation of the various heresies and controversies that have corrupted and disturbed the Church. Yet, if he will turn to Church history, make himself acquainted with its details, and resume his study of the Confession, he will often be surprised to find in one place the wild theories of the Gnostics dispelled; in another, the Arian and Socinian heresies set aside; in another, the very essence of the Papal system annihilated; and in another, the basis of all Pelagian and Arminian errors removed.

Thus viewed, the Confession of Faith might be so connected with one aspect of Church history as to furnish, if not a text-book according to chronological arrangement, in studying the rise and refutation of heresies, yet a valuable arrangement of their relative importance, doctrinally considered.

And when we advert to the fact, that owing to the sameness of the human mind in all ages, there is a perpetually recurring tendency to reproduce an old and exploded error, as if it were a new discovery of some hitherton unknown or neglected truth, it must be obvious that were the peculiar excellence of our Confessuion, as a deliverance on all previously existing heresies, better known and more attended to, there would be great reason to hope that their reappearance would be rendered almost impossible, or, at least, that their growth would be very speedily and effectually checked. . ." History Of The Westminster Divines, William M. Hetherington

(Underlined emphasis, mine)

In other words,'s, the divines deliberately took the high road; emphasing careful handling of the Word of Truth, in the desire to retain unity, rather than focusing on personal or doctrinal differences that resided in their midst. 

A Godly attitude and approach, that, while reviewing this particular history and critique, is speaking very strongly to my soul!


----------



## MW (Jan 20, 2010)

Idelette said:


> Thanks for your input here. I do have a question for you or anyone who may happen to know. When people say that the majority of the Westminster Divines were infra....is that based on the language of the WCF or historical knowledge of the Westminster men?? I haven't been able to find a conclusive answer to this question yet.


 
I doubt a "conclusive" answer will be forthcoming. There is as yet no written study which has examined the views of all the divines. A few names are tossed about as supra, infra, or modified Amyraldian, but no attempt is genuinely made to analyse their writings. Two recent studies may be found in the Westminster Confession into the twenty-first century, vol. 2, by Fesko, and vol. 3, by Thomas. Some divines are analysed but by and large generalisations are still repeated.

There is a basic misunderstanding which prevails on this subject. A supralapsarian believes with the infralapsarian that the elect are ordained to salvation through Jesus Christ. Hence, at the logical point at which the elect are ordained to salvation they are considered as fallen. The idea that the election is of fallen people is not an infralapsarian distinctive. The infralapsarian distinctive is simply a rejection of the supralapsarian distinctive that election to glory is of men unfallen. It is like a train travelling through different stops. If one traveller (the supralapsarian) boards the train at stop 1 and another traveller (the infralapsarian) boards at stop 2, the first traveller (the supralapsarian) is aboard the train at stop 2. It is just that the second traveller (the infralapsarian) is not aboard the train at stop 1.

What does this mean so far as interpreting the Confession is concerned? Those who claim that the Confession allows for both positions are effectively saying it is supralapsarian. If WCF 3:3 is permitted to teach what it plainly says, that God predestinated some men to everlasting life, without the condition that these men were considered fallen, then the statement is clearly supralapsarian. It is the infralapsarian who must add the qualification that "fallen" men were predestinated to everlasting life. When WCF 3:6 proceeds to speak about the means of salvation being provided to those "fallen in Adam," it should be understood that this is a statement which is part of both systems, and hence says nothing to prejudice the supralapsarian position.


----------



## Mushroom (Jan 20, 2010)

Anthropomorphism. Bah!


----------



## BertMulder (Jan 20, 2010)

Of course both views constrain the Eternal God with a creation of His, time and order...

While I lean to the logical order of supra, I confess neither...


----------



## MW (Jan 20, 2010)

BertMulder said:


> Of course both views constrain the Eternal God with a creation of His, time and order...


 
It is a matter of course that every point of contact with His creation will place "constraints" on God.


----------



## reformed trucker (Jan 20, 2010)

Notes on Supralapsarianism & Infralapsarianism

Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism by Herman Bavinck


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jan 20, 2010)

Supraman.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 21, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> I am a Christological supralapsarian in the tradition of Rutherford and Goodwin. I believe Christ is the firstborn of every creature and head of all things, elect and reprobate, Col. 1; I believe Adam was created as a type of the Perfect Man having lordship over all, Hebrews 2; I believe the creation of the first Adam as a living being was necessarily preliminary to the spiritual order coming through the second Adam who is a quickening spirit, 1 Cor. 15; I believe the condemnation and death of the covenant of works was intended to typify the justification and life of the covenant of grace, Rom. 5:12-21. As such, the perfect humanity, heavenly order, and covenant mediation of Christ must be viewed as the end for which man, the earthly order, and the covenant of works were created.


 
I agree with Rev. Winzer.

God is free and Holy


----------



## Idelette (Jan 21, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> Idelette said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for your input here. I do have a question for you or anyone who may happen to know. When people say that the majority of the Westminster Divines were infra....is that based on the language of the WCF or historical knowledge of the Westminster men?? I haven't been able to find a conclusive answer to this question yet.
> ...


 
Reverend Winzer, thank you for this useful post. It was very helpful to me, and I will see if I can find those studies done by Fesko and Thomas.


----------



## N. Eshelman (Jan 21, 2010)

I am a bit surprised that at this point there are 2x the number of supralapsarians as infralapsarians. Frankly, in 'my circles' of friends that are pastors, theologians, students of theology, etc. I know few that are supra (or at least admit to it). Not that I have done a poll or anything; I just hear more people talking about being 'infra'. 

Interesting. Nothing else to say. Just found it interesting. 

Calling myself 'inframan' just doesn't sound as cool as 'supraman' either.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jan 22, 2010)

nleshelman said:


> Calling myself 'inframan' just doesn't sound as cool as 'supraman' either.


 
People have made theological decisions for more vain reasons, but I can't really think of any at the moment... 

Cheers,


----------



## N. Eshelman (Jan 22, 2010)

Christusregnat said:


> nleshelman said:
> 
> 
> > Calling myself 'inframan' just doesn't sound as cool as 'supraman' either.
> ...


 
I am infra; but I think that I may switch, just so that I can call myself 'supraman'.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jan 22, 2010)

Actually, don't feel too badly, I made up a bunch of screen names, and voted 17 times, just to even out the poll.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 22, 2010)

nleshelman said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> > nleshelman said:
> ...


 
Actually, Nate, it could be worse. They could call you a "sub." Somehow, I cannot imagine being called "sub" almost anything would be a good thing. No wonder you prefer "infra."


----------

