James Swan
Puritan Board Freshman
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:
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
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