We have received the following difficult question about predestination: "Supralapsarians claim that their theory does justice to the logical symmetry of the decree of God. Opponents reply that it comes perilously close to making God the Author of sin. They would further emphasize the historical fact that both the Westminster Confession and the Synod of Dort adopted the infra-lapsarian position. Were these synods correct in adopting the milder infra theory?" We will be answering this question in several issues. Some explanation is required. Many will not even have heard the words, supra- or infra-lapsarianism, or if they have, will not have remembered what they mean. Nor should they worry. The subject here is one about which Scripture says nothing. In general, these two words have to do with the logical order of God's decrees. More particularly, they have to do with the relationship between predestination and the fall of mankind in God's decrees. The question is: When God chose some and not others, did He choose them as those whom He had already foreseen as fallen (infra-lapsarianism), or did He choose them solely for His own glory and then "afterward" decree their fall and redemption as the way in which He would use them for His glory (supra-lapsarianism). This involves the further question of where Christ comes in the decree. Did God foresee the fall first, then choose some to salvation, and only then decree Christ and His work as the answer to sin, so that Christ comes last in God's decree? Then the order would be: (1) creation and the fall, (2) election, (3) Christ (= infra-lapsarianism). Or did God first decree Christ as the One through whom He would glorify Himself, then choose some "in Christ" and finally decree the fall and redemption as the way in which He would glorify Himself in Christ and His people? Then the order of God's decrees would be: (1) Christ, (2) election, (3) creation and the fall. Then Christ is first in God's decrees (supralapsarianism). "Infra-lapsarian" means "under" or "after" the "fall" (infra = under, lapsus = fall) and is the other teaching that the decree of predestination was after the decree of the fall. According to this scheme God first saw His people as fallen and then determined to save them, choosing some only to be saved. The word "supra-lapsarian" means "above" or "before" the "fall" and refers to the teaching that the decree of predestination was before the decree of the fall. According to this scheme, God first planned to save some for the glory of His Name and then planned what He would save them from. Infra-lapsarianism, then, teaches that the logical order of God's decrees is the same as the order of things in history - the fall first and Christ last. Supra-lapsarianism says that the order is the opposite of history, Christ first and the fall last, that is, that we must think of things in God's decree in order of their importance. Perhaps we can now see the difficulty. When we ask the first question above the infra-lapsarian order seems preferable in light of Romans 8:29 and Ephesians 2:4 (i.e., when God chose us He saw us as already fallen, NOT conformed to the image of Christ and NOT holy). When we ask the second question the supra-lapsarian order perhaps seems preferable especially in light of Colossians 1:16-18 (i.e., that Christ is before everything else, also in God's decrees. Which, if either, is correct?
We continue in this issue to deal with the
question of supra- versus infra-lapsarianism (cf. vol. V, no. 20). The questioner, has
asked concerning Westminster and Dort, "Were these synods correct in adopting the
milder infra theory?" i.e., is one or the other view correct?
It is clear from the Reformed confessions that they take the infra-lapsarian viewpoint. Thus you will find in them statements to the effect that God chose (elected) His people out a fallen race, that is, out of the human race which He had first foreseen as fallen.
Nevertheless, we would emphasize that neither the Canons of Dort (copy available on request) or the Westminster Confession of Faith condemn supra-lapsarianism. Indeed at both assemblies there were men present who held supra-lapsarian views - Gomarus and Maccovius at Dort and Rutherford, Goodwin and Twisse at Westminster.
Both views teach the Biblical fundamentals: (1) that predestination is double and includes both election and reprobation; (2) that it is eternal and unconditional (i.e., that God chooses and rejects without regard to personal merit, but solely according to His good pleasure - Eph. 1, Rom. 9); (3) that God eternally decreed the fall of man and the coming of sin into the world; and (4) that God decreed all things for His own glory.
Both teach, then, that predestination is eternal and is in that sense before the actual historical event of the fall. Both also teach that in history redemption follows the fall and the coming of sin into the world. Christ's cross is the remedy for sin. The question only concerns the order of God's decrees, about which Scripture says nothing.
That is not to say that there is no truth in either view. But insofar as there is Biblical truth in either view, there is truth in both.
For example, Scripture teaches that Christ is first and central in God's decrees (cf. Col. 1:16-17). Supralapsarianism emphasizes this with its order: Christ, election in Christ, creation and the fall.
On the other hand infralapsarianism emphasises the Biblical truth that election is gracious by seeing Christ even in God's decrees as the answer to and remedy for sin with its order: creation, fall, election, Christ (cf. Rev. 13:8). Note though that infralapsarianism does NOT say that election follows the fall in time (that would be Arminianism), but only in God's decree.
Nevertheless, the question is too speculative and abstract. Scripture says nothing about the logical order of God's decrees and it is, therefore, a matter of little importance and ought not be a matter of strife or division or a test of orthodoxy among Christians.
The fact is that God's decree is ONE, just as God Himself is One. It is, therefore, we believe, unnecessary to talk about order in the decrees and to try to separate and arrange them in some order.
We should emphasize that Christ is "before all things" as supralapsarianism does. This is very important. But we should also emphasize that election is gracious and reprobation just, as does infra-lapsarianism. That is equally important.
Emphasizing these two things we will not be, strictly speaking either supra- or infra-lapsarians, but will merely be keeping to those things that are revealed and leaving the secret things, the things God has not revealed, to God Himself.
It is clear from the Reformed confessions that they take the infra-lapsarian viewpoint. Thus you will find in them statements to the effect that God chose (elected) His people out a fallen race, that is, out of the human race which He had first foreseen as fallen.
Nevertheless, we would emphasize that neither the Canons of Dort (copy available on request) or the Westminster Confession of Faith condemn supra-lapsarianism. Indeed at both assemblies there were men present who held supra-lapsarian views - Gomarus and Maccovius at Dort and Rutherford, Goodwin and Twisse at Westminster.
Both views teach the Biblical fundamentals: (1) that predestination is double and includes both election and reprobation; (2) that it is eternal and unconditional (i.e., that God chooses and rejects without regard to personal merit, but solely according to His good pleasure - Eph. 1, Rom. 9); (3) that God eternally decreed the fall of man and the coming of sin into the world; and (4) that God decreed all things for His own glory.
Both teach, then, that predestination is eternal and is in that sense before the actual historical event of the fall. Both also teach that in history redemption follows the fall and the coming of sin into the world. Christ's cross is the remedy for sin. The question only concerns the order of God's decrees, about which Scripture says nothing.
That is not to say that there is no truth in either view. But insofar as there is Biblical truth in either view, there is truth in both.
For example, Scripture teaches that Christ is first and central in God's decrees (cf. Col. 1:16-17). Supralapsarianism emphasizes this with its order: Christ, election in Christ, creation and the fall.
On the other hand infralapsarianism emphasises the Biblical truth that election is gracious by seeing Christ even in God's decrees as the answer to and remedy for sin with its order: creation, fall, election, Christ (cf. Rev. 13:8). Note though that infralapsarianism does NOT say that election follows the fall in time (that would be Arminianism), but only in God's decree.
Nevertheless, the question is too speculative and abstract. Scripture says nothing about the logical order of God's decrees and it is, therefore, a matter of little importance and ought not be a matter of strife or division or a test of orthodoxy among Christians.
The fact is that God's decree is ONE, just as God Himself is One. It is, therefore, we believe, unnecessary to talk about order in the decrees and to try to separate and arrange them in some order.
We should emphasize that Christ is "before all things" as supralapsarianism does. This is very important. But we should also emphasize that election is gracious and reprobation just, as does infra-lapsarianism. That is equally important.
Emphasizing these two things we will not be, strictly speaking either supra- or infra-lapsarians, but will merely be keeping to those things that are revealed and leaving the secret things, the things God has not revealed, to God Himself.
Rev. Ronald Hanko
No comments:
Post a Comment