Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Supralapsarianism - The Beauty of Logic & Doctrine

There are two major views of how God decreed to save the elect from all eternity: infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism. The dominant Reformed view is infralapsarianism, but noted theologians like Martin Luther, John Knox, Theodore Beza, Huldrych Zwingli, Jerome Zanchius, and Franciscus Gomarus have held to supralapsarianism. Further, three well known modern theologians have also fervently advocated supralapsarianism: Geerhardus Vos, Gordon Clark, and Dr. Robert Reymond.

Here is a brief analysis of the two views with an excellent restatement of supralapsarianism that is both convincing, biblical, and logically and doctrinally consistent:


Infralapsarianism
– Refers to a historical order of the decrees of God in salvation. Thus they order the decrees of God in salvation as follows:
  1. The decree to create the world and all men.
  2. The decree of the fall of all men into sin
  3. The decree to elect some sinners to salvation and the reprobate to justice.
  4. The decree that Christ’s cross work would accomplish redemption for the elect.
  5. The decree that Christ’s cross work be applied to the elect.

Essentially, they hold that God first decrees to create the world and permit the fall before enacting a particularizing principle in Christ amongst men – thus “infra” after “lapsarian” the fall. The order of decrees follows the chronological order of supposed execution in history. Infralapsarians further hold that their order of decrees has God distinguishing amongst men as sinners and NOT amongst men as merely men – this is their main accusation against supralapsarianism.

Supralapsarianism – Refers to the logical/teleological order of the decrees of God in salvation. Thus, they order the decrees as follows:

  1. The decree to elect some men to salvation and the reprobate to justice.
  2. The decree to create the world and all men.
  3. The decree of the fall of all of man into sin.
  4. The decree that Christ’s cross work would accomplish redemption for the elect.
  5. The decree that Christ’s cross work be applied to the elect.

Supralapsarians hold that the particularizing principle of Christ’s cross work and whom it is for is the organizing and primary unifying principle of all the decrees – therefore it comes before “supra” the fall “lapsarian.” However, infralapsarians charge the traditional supralapsarian view as distinguishing amongst men as men and not sinners.

Theodore Beza - Successor to Calvin and Surpalapsarianist-Extraordinaire

However, Dr. Robert Reymond, formerly of Knox Theological Seminary, makes an adjustment to the historic view of supralapsarianism. The adjustment that Dr. Reymond makes creates a logically and doctrinally consistent supralapsarian scheme. It is as follows:

  1. The decree to elect some sinners in Christ and the reprobate to justice in order to show forth the grace of God given to the elect.
  2. The decree to apply Christ’s cross work to the elect
  3. The decree to accomplish Christ’s cross work for the elect
  4. The decree to permit the fall of man into sin
  5. The decree to create the world and all men in and through Adam.

  • Thus, the order of decrees is structured according to how a rational mind organizes a plan. Namely, a rational mind begins with its end purpose and moves progressively through each means to achieve that purpose. Therefore, the execution of the plan is done in retrograde order so that the first in accomplishment is the last decree and vice versa.
  • Additionally, this scheme answers the infralapsarianism criticism and portrays God as choosing the elect amongst men as sinners – thus solving the traditional criticism against supralapsarianism.

11 comments:

  1. One thought I had: How do we square logical order within God without doing damage to divine simplicity?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for the post. I didn't know Luther was supralapsarian.

    Reymond's revision of order makes much more sense, but I'm having a little more trouble understanding the revision to the first point. The way you listed traditional supralapsarianism describes God electing men as sinners, not as men. So in this regard it seems the same as Reymond, so I don't understand how it avoids the infra criticism.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jason,

    I am not sure how Reymond's reformulation "solving the traditional criticism against supralapsarianism."

    Could you elaborate for me please.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Faris,

    Good question about God's simplicity.

    I presume you mean how can it be said that God thinks or acts in what we would call a logic order because that would necessitate God looking at and thinking upon things in parts, and God is not made up of parts, thus he would need to look at it as a whole. Is this correct? If so, the same predicament would exist for the historical order of the infralapsarians either – they are still using a subset of logic, i.e. cause and effect of events in history, to formulate their position.

    But to answer the question, to say that God is simple is to say that God is not made of up of parts. To quote Berkhof:
    "When we speak of the simplicity of God, we use the term to describe the state or quality of being simple, the condition of being free from division into parts, and therefore from compositeness. It means that God is not composite and is not susceptible of division in any sense of the word. This implies among other things that the three Persons of the Godhead are not so many parts of which the Divine essence is composed, that God’s essences and perfections are not distinct, and that the attributes are not superadded to His essence. Since the two are not one, the Bible can speak of God as light and life, as righteousness and love, thus identifying Him with His perfections" (Systematics 62).

    The self-existence of God and His immutability are the primary characteristics that comprise His simplicity – He is eternally self-generating and never changes. If we do not allow for ascription of attributes to God then we quickly slide into medieval nominalism – i.e. the doctrine that general or abstract words do not stand for objectively existing entities and that universals are no more than names assigned to them. I do not believe this is something you are positing.

    Thus, to say that God cannot be said to think logically because He is simple is to commit a category mistake. It is to mistake the category of thinking with the category of being – they are related, but not the same. To be and to proscribe facts about being is to describe things within the realm of essence. To think and proscribe facts about thinking is to describe things within the realm of essence in motion, or essence in relation to other essences and things.

    What makes an essence unchangeable does not preclude it from various and changing interactions with other essences. A poor example would be me interacting with you. My essence of humanness does not change when I interact with you, but my thoughts, feelings, and physical condition does. This is true of God also. He changes in the sense of relationally to us, but this is not what we are taking about when we talk about His immutability. By immutable we mean that the very essence of who God is (i.e. holy, righteous, simple. omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, etc.) does not and will never change – it can’t.

    However, I will definitely admit that there is a certain inadequacy in to trying to describe the omnipotent God within our limited scope. This does not mean that God cannot be accurately described. It simply means that God will never be completely described, and there are definitely many sides to the attributes in question above.

    ReplyDelete
  5. However, I am not saying that God's eternal thinking about His people has changed. Scripture clearly states that He has known us and loved us before the foundation of the world, from all eternity.

    Thus, as Jonathan Edwards stated, there is a sense in which all of the decrees of redemptive history were immediately in the mind together from all eternity. However, because these decrees or propositions are all in the mind of God at the same time does not preclude the omnipotent, omniscient God from distinguishing between them - there must be at least some level of distinction else all would be indistinguishable and meaningless.

    Yet, God does simply "apply" logic to propositions. Nor does he appropriate propositions. First, propositional truth is the truth that comes from the very nature of God himself - God is the foundation of ALL truth. Second, these propositions are not then run through the laws of logic. Instead, logic is the very super-structure of God's mind. God cannot do anything other than think about things logically.

    Thus, the propositional decrees of redemption have been logically and deliberately ordered from all eternity and are dynamically worked out in temporal history.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The traditional supralapsarian view, while it properly holds to God’s electing grace as the organizing and primary principle, really holds that the discriminating and particularizing decree is the fall of man. After stating the primary, organizing principle of election of some sinners to salvation each subsequent decree follows the historical order of events.

    First, there is no logical cause and effect between each decree. The election of men does not immediately necessitate the creation of man – it does necessitate it eventually, it just does not necessarily follow from the proposition stated. Election, biblically defined, requires choosing a group of sinners out of the entire lot. Thus, there is not a necessary connection between decree 1, electing some men and step three, the fall of all men. Yet, in the traditional view it is the fall that actually creates this elect group of sinners. Second, since there is no necessary connection between decrees 1 and 3, then this scheme ends up presenting God as purely discriminating amongst all men purely as men. They are not yet looked at as sinners because the fall does not happen until decree 3.


    1.The decree to elect some men to salvation and the reprobate to justice.
    2.The decree to create the world and all men.
    3.The decree of the fall of all of man into sin.
    4.The decree that Christ’s cross work would accomplish redemption for the elect.
    5.The decree that Christ’s cross work be applied to the elect.


    Dr. Reymond's reformulation presents the initial organizing decree, election in Christ, to also be the particularizing principle – God decrees to elect some sinners. All subsequent decrees serve this one overarching decree.

    1.The decree to elect some sinners in Christ and the reprobate to justice in order to show forth the grace of God given to the elect.
    2.The decree to apply Christ’s cross work to the elect
    3.The decree to accomplish Christ’s cross work for the elect
    4.The decree to permit the fall of man into sin
    5.The decree to create the world and all men in and through Adam.


    Thus, the election of sinners necessitates the elect to become what the elect were ordained, i.e. the whole purpose of election, to become: righteous. In turn, this requires the work to make the elect righteous (accomplishing the cross work of Christ), then the reason that they need to be made righteous (the fall), and lastly the actual potential/ability to make them righteous (creation).

    The plan is then executed, like any rational mind, in retrograde order to accomplish the primary goal: election in Christ of sinners. God creates the world, permits the fall, accomplishes the cross work of Christ, applies the cross work of Christ, and all so that God could and would elect some sinners in Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  7. One thing major to notice is that the first decree in the traditional supralapsarian view has God electing some MEN to salvation.

    Dr. Reymond re-statement has God electing some SINNERS.

    ReplyDelete
  8. My intention is not to kill conversation, but to win over the whole world until all agree with me!!! :)

    So, did I win anyone over to supralapsarianism, the minority Reformed view?

    ReplyDelete
  9. As always with this subject these presentations always seem simple until the first response arrives with a: "I'm having a problem with..." Then everything suddenly looks maniacally complex and confusing again...

    I might be one though to have become partial to Reymond's tweaking now that I see it more clearly...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hey,
    Nice site and I appreciate the post. I have a site that focuses on the Supra position. It is a newer site and I am very new at creating sites, blogs, etc. Feel free to check it out and get involved in any way possible. Kinda trying to rally all the Supras to network and expand this God-honoring view. The site is
    http://supralapsarian.wordpress.com

    Later,
    Scott Price
    Gal 6:14

    ReplyDelete
  11. That is interesting. I consider myself supralapsarian. However, I have not really considered the tweak view of the decrees. Thanks for sharing.

    ReplyDelete

Before posting please read our Comment Policy here.

Think hard about this: the world is watching!