# Supralapsarianism vs Infralapsarianism



## Croghanite (Jan 22, 2009)

Did the majority of puritans believe in Supra or Infra?

How much of a majority was it?


----------



## dannyhyde (Jan 22, 2009)

You should contact Mid-America Reformed Seminary and get the CD of the following lectures by Richard Muller: "Revising the Predestination Paradigm: An Alternative Approach to Supralapsarianism, Infralapsarianism and Hypothetical Universalism."

There are three lectures: 1) The Problem Stated, 2) The Lapsarian Question, and 3) Varieties of Hypothetical Universalism.


----------



## MW (Jan 23, 2009)

LAYMAN JOE said:


> Did the majority of puritans believe in Supra or Infra?



The majority, being ordinary pastors, probably assumed the agnostic-type position of Richard Sibbes. This would have been aided amongst earlier Puritans by King James' authority limiting controversy on the subject. In Scotland, amongst the second reformation theologians, the infralapsarian position was often associated with Arminianising tendencies.


----------



## discipulo (Jan 23, 2009)

In Holland, while the Synod of Dort didn’t issue a final position on the matter as there is no mention of the order of the Decrees, it has several statements that can be interpreted as Infralapsarianism.

_according to the sovereign good pleasure of his own will, chosen, from the whole human race, which had fallen through their own fault _CD 7 

_that he was pleased out of the common mass of sinners to adopt some certain persons as a peculiar people to hims_elf CD 10

Being one key reference to sustain an Infra Order of the Decrees the passage in John 15:19 _I chose you out of the world_

Still in Dort many delegates were Supralpasarian.

Franciscus Gomarus and Johannes Maccovius were very strong Supralapsarians, and on extreme occasions even suggested the Predestination unto Reprobation being a Predestination unto Sin. Being reminded that God can never be the author of sin.

The Synod of Dort was also solving an appeal of Maccovius against Lubbertus, who opposed the former on that issue, it was solved within walls, and both Maccovius and Gomarists dropped any attempt to extend Reprobation beyond its scope.

On the other hand there were also some suggestions to further restrict even a Supralapsarian interpretation.

It seems that on this Gomarus appealed to William Perkins in attendance as a guest to the Synod, who was highly esteemed amongst all, and Perkins brought a providential balance to the debate.

So I’m looking forward to read on the Westminster Assembly on this matter, being both Perkins and Twisse also Supralapsarians. 

If the debate in Dordrecht between Infra and Supralapsarianism was not conclusive, it was certainly because of the leadership of Gomarus in the Synod, and his important and positive former role against Arminius, while he was alive, and then against the Remonstrants, that there was room left for Supralapsarianism in the Canons.

Later several Dutch Reformed Theologians were Supralapsarians like Voetius or Witsius.

Being closer myself to the Supralapsarian interpretation, I believe it was Theodore Beza that while being Supra, stated that both positions are needed to Reformed Theology.

Certainly that is the position of Herman Bavinck and later of his indebted Louis Berkhof.

In a sense it was the way the Synod of Dort materialized the conclusions of the debate.


----------



## dannyhyde (Jan 23, 2009)

discipulo said:


> It seems that on this Gomarus appealed to William Perkins in attendance as a guest to the Synod, who was highly esteemed amongst all, and Perkins brought a providential balance to the debate.



I think you mean someone else, as Perkins was dead in 1602 . . .


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jan 23, 2009)

dannyhyde said:


> You should contact Mid-America Reformed Seminary and get the CD of the following lectures by Richard Muller: "Revising the Predestination Paradigm: An Alternative Approach to Supralapsarianism, Infralapsarianism and Hypothetical Universalism."
> 
> There are three lectures: 1) The Problem Stated, 2) The Lapsarian Question, and 3) Varieties of Hypothetical Universalism.



Not seeing it on the web page. May I be missing it?


----------



## discipulo (Jan 23, 2009)

dannyhyde said:


> discipulo said:
> 
> 
> > It seems that on this Gomarus appealed to William Perkins in attendance as a guest to the Synod, who was highly esteemed amongst all, and Perkins brought a providential balance to the debate.
> ...



Thank you, I guess my source was not reliable, or is another Perkins, I will take a look.

quotes from primary sources

The British and Bremen delegates represented the more moderate strands of Calvinism, but there were also several high Calvinists present that tended towards outright hyper-Calvinism. The delegates from Friesland and Gelderland argued against the free offer of the gospel.
At the close of the Synod, the delegates from England, Hesse, and Bremen all requested that certain contra-Remonstrant positions be condemned, particularly statements found in the writings of Piscator. Earlier in the proceedings, Gomarus had greatly disturbed the British when he stated, “As He predestinated man to death, so He predestinated him to sin, the only way to death.” Of this John Hales remarked, “And so he mended the question as tinkers mend kettles, and made it worse than before.”

“In considering the place of the British and their views, we should also note the impression that they were able to make upon the final version of the Canons of Dort. The Canons are infralapsarian. In fact, the opposition to supralapsarianism was so strong that at one point, Bishop Carleton requested that supralapsarianism be included among the rejected errors. To avoid this decision, *Gomarus appealed to the authority of English theologians like William Perkins and upon their reputation was able to avoid condemnation*.”

Anthony Milton, The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort (Church of England Record Society: Boydell Press)

Michael Hakkenberg, The Predestinarian Controversy in the Netherlands, 1600-1620 (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1989)

and Johannes Maccovius: Supralapsarian


----------



## Croghanite (Jan 23, 2009)

Interesting....


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 23, 2009)

Can anyone dig up some old threads where somebody polled them? The PuritanBoard on parchment.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jan 23, 2009)

I wonder what John Knox's sheepskin name was...? 

"MonstrousTrumpet" or "FmrSlave" or "Scotland#1"...


----------



## dannyhyde (Jan 23, 2009)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> dannyhyde said:
> 
> 
> > You should contact Mid-America Reformed Seminary and get the CD of the following lectures by Richard Muller: "Revising the Predestination Paradigm: An Alternative Approach to Supralapsarianism, Infralapsarianism and Hypothetical Universalism."
> ...



Benjamin,

You have to call or email the seminary . . . my mistake.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jan 23, 2009)

10-4


----------



## discipulo (Jan 23, 2009)

dannyhyde said:


> discipulo said:
> 
> 
> > It seems that on this Gomarus appealed to William Perkins in attendance as a guest to the Synod, who was highly esteemed amongst all, and Perkins brought a providential balance to the debate.
> ...



Yes, Milton can’t be referring to William Perkins.

My best guess, is that it is a mistake, and it may be a reference to William Ames instead.

Ames (also a William) was converted under the preaching of William Perkins.

Went to Holland in 1610

Ames was also the adviser of Johan Bogerman, President of the Synod of Dort (1618-20)

And William Ames died in Rotterdam in 1633


----------



## Prufrock (Jan 23, 2009)

Discipulo,

I don't think there's any mistake in the quote at all. It doesn't say that Gomarus appealed to Perkins _who was present._ Perkins was a notable supralapsarian: he didn't have to be present at Dort (it's hard when you're dead...) in order for his opinions to still carry weight. We appeal to Perkins today still: it doesn't mean he's alive and present.


----------



## FenderPriest (Jan 23, 2009)

In J.I. Packer's lectures on Puritanism (via RST on iTunesU) he says that most of the English Puritans were Infra.

Herman Bavinck has some helpful material on the whole debate in volume 2 of his Reformed Dogmatics.


----------



## discipulo (Jan 23, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> Discipulo,
> 
> I don't think there's any mistake in the quote at all. It doesn't say that Gomarus appealed to Perkins _who was present._ Perkins was a notable supralapsarian: he didn't have to be present at Dort (it's hard when you're dead...) in order for his opinions to still carry weight. We appeal to Perkins today still: it doesn't mean he's alive and present.



Thank you, that makes sense too.
In fact it seemed like an appeal to an opinion of someone present, Ames would fill those requirements.
On the other hand, for Perkins it had to be in the sense of Hebrews 11, those who being already dead still speak.


----------

