 |
Notes on Supralapsarianism & Infralapsarianism |
| "Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?" (Romans 9:21). |
Copyright © 1998, 2000 by Phillip R. Johnson. All rights reserved.
(Special thanks to Larry Wing for encouraging me to put this on line.)
This page looks at four major ways of ordering the soteriological elements of God's eternal decree—with a particular focus on the difference between supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism. I have summarized the differences in a side-by-side comparison below. Explanatory notes follow.
| Supralapsarianism | Infralapsarianism | Amyraldism | Arminianism |
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
The distinction between infralapsarianism and
supralapsarianism has to do with the logical order of God's
eternal decrees, not the timing of election. Neither side suggests
that the elect were chosen after Adam sinned. God made His choice
before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4)—long before Adam sinned.
Both infras and supras (and even many Arminians) agree on
this.
SUPRALAPSARIANISM is the
view that God, contemplating man as yet unfallen, chose some to receive
eternal life and rejected all others. So a supralapsarian would say that
the reprobate (non-elect)—vessels of wrath fitted for destruction (Rom.
9:22)—were first ordained to that role, and then the means by which
they fell into sin was ordained. In other words, supralapsarianism
suggests that God's decree of election logically preceded His
decree to permit Adam's fall—so that their damnation is first of all an
act of divine sovereignty, and only secondarily an act of divine
justice.
Supralapsarianism is sometimes
mistakenly equated with "double predestination." The term "double
predestination" itself is often used in a misleading and ambiguous
fashion. Some use it to mean nothing more than the view that the eternal
destiny of both elect and reprobate is settled by the eternal decree of
God. In that sense of the term, all genuine Calvinists hold to
"double predestination"—and the fact that the destiny of the reprobate is
eternally settled is clearly a biblical doctrine (cf. 1 Peter 2:8; Romans
9:22; Jude 4). But more often, the expression "double predestination" is
employed as a pejorative term to describe the view of those who suggest
that God is as active in keeping the reprobate out of heaven as He is in
getting the elect in. (There's an even more sinister form of "double
predestination," which suggests that God is as active in making the
reprobate evil as He is in making the elect holy.)This
view (that God is as active in reprobating the non-elect as He is in
redeeming the elect) is more properly labeled "equal ultimacy" (cf. R.C.
Sproul, Chosen by God, 142). It is actually a form of hyper-Calvinism
and has nothing to do with true, historic Calvinism. Though all who hold
such a view would also hold to the supralapsarian scheme, the view itself
is not a necessary ramification of
supralapsarianism.
Supralapsarianism is
also sometimes wrongly equated with hyper-Calvinism. All hyper-Calvinists
are supralapsarians, though not all supras are
hyper-Calvinists.
Supralapsarianism is
sometimes called "high" Calvinism, and its most extreme adherents tend to
reject the notion that God has any degree of sincere goodwill or
meaningful compassion toward the non-elect. Historically, a minority of
Calvinists have held this view.
But
Boettner's comment that "there is not more than one Calvinist in a hundred
that holds the supralapsarian view," is no doubt an exaggeration. And in
the past decade or so, the supralapsarian view seems to have gained
popularity.
INFRALAPSARIANISM
(also known sometimes as "sublapsarianism") suggests that God's decree to
permit the fall logically preceded His decree of election. So when God
chose the elect and passed over the non-elect, He was contemplating them
all as fallen creatures.
Those are the two major
Calvinistic views. Under the supralapsarian scheme, God
first rejects the reprobate out of His sovereign good pleasure; then He
ordains the means of their damnation through the fall. In the
infralapsarian order, the non-elect are first seen as fallen
individuals, and they are damned solely because of their own sin.
Infralapsarians tend to emphasize God's "passing over" the non-elect
(preterition) in His decree of
election.
Robert Reymond, himself a
supralapsarian, proposes the following refinement of the supralapsarian
view:
| Reymond's
Modified Supralapsarianism |
|---|
|
Notice that in addition to reordering the decrees, Reymond's view
deliberately stresses that in the decree of election and reprobation, God
is contemplating men as sinners. Reymond writes, "In this scheme,
unlike the former [the classic supra- order], God is represented as
discriminating among men viewed as sinners and not among men viewed simply
as men. (See Robert Reymond, Systematic Theology of the Christian
Faith, 489). Reymond's refinement avoids the criticism most commonly
leveled against supralapsarianism—that the supralapsarian has God damning
men to perdition before He even contemplates them as sinners. But
Reymond's view also leaves unanswered the question of how and why God
would regard all men as sinners even before it was determined that the
human race would fall. (Some might even argue that Reymond's refinements
result in a position that, as far as the key distinction is concerned, is
implicitly infralapsarian.)
All the major
Reformed Creeds are either explicitly infralapsarian, or else they
carefully avoid language that favors either view. No major creed takes the
supra position. (This whole issue was hotly debated throughout the
Westminster Assembly. William Twisse, an ardent supralapsarian and
chairman of the Assembly, ably defended his view. But the Assembly opted
for language that clearly favors the infra position, yet without
condemning supralapsarianism.)
"Bavinck
has pointed out that the supralapsarian presentation 'has not been
incorporated in a single Reformed Confession' but that the infra position
has received an official place in the Confessions of the churches"
(Berkouwer, Divine Election,
259).
Louis Berkhof's discussion of the
two views (in his Systematic Theology) is helpful, though he seems
to favor supralapsarianism. I take the Infra view, as did Turretin, most
of the Princeton theologians, and most of the leading Westminster Seminary
men (e.g., John Murray). These issues were at the heart of the "common
grace" controversy in the first half of the Twentieth Century. Herman
Hoeksema and those who followed him took such a rigid supralapsarian
position that they ultimately denied the very concept of common
grace.
Finally, see the chart
(above), which compares these two views with Amyraldism (a kind of
four-point Calvinism) and Arminianism. My notes on each view
(below) identify some of the major advocates of each view.
NOTES ON THE ORDER OF THE DECREES
© 1994, 1997, 2000 by Phillip R. Johnson
- Supralapsarianism
- Beza held this view. Although he is often credited with formulating
the supralapsarian position, he did not.
- Other historic proponents include Gomarus, Twisse, Perkins, Voetus,
Witsius, and Comrie.
- Louis Berkhof sees value in both views, but seems to lean slightly
toward supralapsarianism (Systematic Theology, 120-25).
- Karl Barth felt supralapsarianism was more nearly correct than infralapsarianism.
- Robert Reymond's Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith takes the supralapsarian view and includes a lengthy defense of supralapsarianism.
- Turretin says supralapsarianism is "harsher and less suitable" than
infralapsarianism. He believes it "does not appear to agree sufficiently
with [God's] unspeakable goodness" (Elenctic Theology, vol. 1,
418).
- Herman Hoeksema and the entire leadership of the Protestant Reformed Churches (including Homer Hoeksema, Herman Hanko, and David Engelsma) are determined supralapsarians—often arguing both implicitly and explicitly that supralapsarianism is the only logically consistent scheme. This presumption clearly contributes to the PRC's rejection of common grace.
- In fact, the same arguments used in favor of Supralapsarianism have
been employed against common grace. So supralapsarianism may have
in it a tendency that is hostile to the idea of common grace. (It is a
fact that virtually all who deny "common grace" are
supralapsarians.)
- Supralapsarianism is the position of all who hold to the harshest sort of "double predestination."
- It is hard to find exponents of supralapsarianism among the major
systematic theologians. But the tide among some of the more modern
authors may be turning toward the supra- view. Berkhof was sympathetic
to the view; Reymond expressly defends it.
- R. A. Webb says supralapsarianism is "abhorrent to metaphysics, to ethics, and to the scriptures. It is propounded in no Calvinistic creed and can be charged only upon some extremists" ( Christian Salvation, 16). While I am sympathetic to Webb's infra- convictions, I think he grossly exaggerates the case against supralapsarianism. [Webb is a 19th-cent. southern Presbyterian.]
- Infralapsarianism
- This view is also called "sublapsarianism."
- John Calvin said some things that seem to indicate he would have
been in sympathy with this view, though the debate did not occur in his
lifetime (see Calvin's Calvinism, trans. by Henry Cole, 89ff;
also William Cunningham, The Reformers and the Theology of the
Reformation, 364ff)
- W. G. T. Shedd, Charles Hodge, L. Boettner, and
Anthony Hoekema held this view.
- Both R. L. Dabney and William Cunningham lean decidedly to this view
but resist arguing the point. They believe the whole debate goes beyond
scripture and is therefore unnecessary. Dabney, for example, says "This
is a question which ought never to have been raised" (Systematic
Theology, 233). Twisse, the supralapsarian, virtually agreed with
this. He called the difference "merely apex logicus, a point of
logic. And were it not a mere madness to make a breach of unity or
charity in the church merely upon a point of logic?" (cited in
Cunningham, The Reformers, 363). G.C. Berkouwer also agrees: "We
face here a controversy which owes its existence to a trespassing of the
boundaries set by revelation." Berkouwer wonders aloud whether we are
"obeying the teaching of Scripture if we refuse to make a choice here"
(Divine Election, 254-55).
- Thornwell does not agree that the issue is moot. He says the issue
"involves something more than a question of logical method. It is really
a question of the highest moral significance. . . . Conviction and
hanging are parts of the same process, but it is something more than a
question of arrangement whether a man shall be hung before he is
convicted" (Collected Writings, 2:20). Thornwell is vehemently
infralapsarian.
- Infralapsarianism was affirmed by the synod of Dordt but only implied in the Westminster standards. Twisse, a supralapsarian, was the first president of the Westminster Assembly, which evidently decided the wisest course was to ignore the controversy altogether (though Westminster's bias was arguably infralapsarian) . The Westminster Confession, therefore, along with most of the Reformed Creeds, implicitly affirmed what the Synod of Utrecht (1905) would later explicitly declare: "That our confessions, certainly with respect to the doctrine of election, follow the infralapsarian presentation, [but] this does not at all imply an exclusion or condemnation of the supralapsarian presentation."
- Amyraldism
- Amyraldism (is the preferred spelling, not AmyraldIANism).
- Amyraldism is the doctrine formulated by Moise Amyraut, a French theologian from the Saumur school. (This same school spawned another aggravating deviation from Reformed orthodoxy: Placaeus' view involving the mediate imputation of Adam's guilt).
- By making the decree to atone for sin logically antecedent to the decree of election, Amyraut could view the atonement as hypothetically universal, but efficacious for the elect alone. Therefore the view is sometimes called "hypothetical universalism."
- Puritan Richard Baxter embraced this view, or one very nearly like
it. He seems to have been the only major Puritan leader who was not a
thoroughgoing Calvinist. Some would dispute whether Baxter was a true
Amyraldian. (See, e.g. George Smeaton, The Apostles' Doctrine of the
Atonement [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1991 reprint], Appendix,
542.) But Baxter seemed to regard himself as Amyraldian.
- This is a sophisticated way of formulating "four-point Calvinism,"
while still accounting for an eternal decree of election.
- But Amyraldism probably should not be equated with all brands of so-called "four-point Calvinism." In my own experience, most self-styled four-pointers are unable to articulate any coherent explanation of how the atonement can be universal but election unconditional. So I wouldn't glorify their position by labeling it Amyraldism. (Would that they were as committed to the doctrine of divine sovereignty as Moise Amyraut! Most who call themselves four-pointers are actually crypto-Arminians.)
- A. H.Strong held this view (Systematic Theology, 778).
He called it (incorrectly) "sublapsarianism."
- Henry Thiessen, evidently following Strong, also mislabeled this view "sublapsarianism" (and contrasted it with "infralapsarianism") in the original edition of his Lectures in Systematic Theology (343). His discussion in this edition is very confusing and patently wrong at points. In later editions of his book this section was completely rewritten.
- Arminianism
- Henry Thiessen argued for essentially this view in the original edition of his Systematic Theology. The revised edition no longer explicitly defends this order of the decrees, but Thiessen's fundamental Arminianism is still clearly evident.
- Most Arminian theologians decline to deal with God's eternal decree, and extreme Arminians even deny the very concept of an eternal decree. Those who acknowledge the divine decree, however, must end up making election contingent upon the believer's response to the call of the gospel. Indeed, this is the whole gist of Arminianism.
Phil Johnson
? !
/~\ /~\
@ ..? OO-=?
_( ^) (^ )_
(__ ~_\ http://www.gty.org/~phil/e-mail.htm /_~ __)
/=ooOo=oOoo=========================================ooOo=oOoo=\
| PO Box 4000 * Panorama City, CA 91412 * (661) 295-5777 |
| sola fide * sola gratia * sola Scriptura * soli Deo gloria |
\_____________________________________________________________/
|
 on your way out? | |
|
This page and its design are copyright |