Supralapsarianism
The
doctrine that supposes God decreed both election and reprobation before the
fall. Supralapsarianism differs from infralapsarianism on the relation of God's
decree to human sin. The differences go back to the conflict between Augustine
and Pelagius. Before the Reformation, the main difference was whether Adam's
fall was included in God's eternal decree; supralapsarians held that it was,
but infralapsarians acknowledged only God's foreknowledge of sin. Luther,
Zwingli, and Calvin were agreed that Adam's fall was somehow included in God's
decree; it came to be referred to as a "permissive decree," and all
insisted that God was in no way the author of sin. As a result of the
Reformers' agreement, after the Reformation the distinction between infra- and
supralapsarianism shifted to differences on the logical order of God's decrees.
Theodore
Beza, Calvin's successor at Geneva, was the first to develop supralapsarianism
in this new sense. By the time of the Synod of Dort in 1618-19, a heated
intraconfessional controversy developed between infra- and supralapsarians;
both positions were represented at the synod. Francis Gomarus, the chief
opponent of James Arminius, was a supralapsarian.
The
question of the logical, not the temporal, order of the eternal decrees
reflected differences on God's ultimate goal in predestination and on the
specific objects of predestination. Supralapsarians considered God's ultimate
goal to be his own glory in election and reprobation, while infralapsarians
considered predestination subordinate to other goals. The object of
predestination, according to supralapsarians, was uncreated and unfallen
humanity, while infralapsarians viewed the object as created and fallen
humanity.
The
term "supralapsarianism" comes from the Latin words supra and lapsus;
the decree of predestination was considered to be "above" (supra) or
logically "before" the decree concerning the fall (lapsus), while the
infralapsarians viewed it as "below" (infra) or logically
"after" the decree concerning the fall. The contrast of the two views
is evident from the following summaries. The logical order of the decrees in
the supralapsarian scheme is: (1) God's decree to glorify himself through the
election of some and the reprobation of others; (2) as a means to that goal,
the decree to create those elected and reprobated; (3) the decree to permit the
fall; and (4) the decree to provide salvation for the elect through Jesus
Christ.
The
logical order of the decrees according to infralapsarians is: (1) God's decree
to glorify himself through the creation of the human race; (2) the decree to
permit the fall; (3) the decree to elect some of the fallen race to salvation
and to pass by the others and condemn them for their sin; and (4) the decree to
provide salvation for the elect through Jesus Christ. Infralapsarians were in
the majority at the Synod of Dort. The Arminians tried to depict all the
Calvinists as representatives of the "repulsive" supralapsarian
doctrine. Four attempts were made at Dort to condemn the supralapsarian view,
but the efforts were unsuccessful. Although the Canons of Dort do not deal with
the order of the divine decrees, they are infralapsarian in the sense that the
elect are "chosen from the whole human race, which had fallen through
their own fault from their primitive state of rectitude into sin and
destruction" (I,7; cf.I,1). The reprobate "are passed by in the
eternal decree" and God "decreed to leave [them] in the common misery
into which they have willfully plunged themselves" and "to condemn
and punish them forever...for all their sins" (I,15).
Defenders
of supralapsarianism continued after Dort. The chairman of the Westminister
Assembly, William Twisse, was a supralapsarian but the Westminister standards
do not favor either position. Although supralapsarianism never received
confessional endorsement within the Reformed churches, it has been tolerated
within the confessional boundaries. In 1905 the Reformed churches of the
Netherlands and the Christian Reformed Church in 1908 adopted the Conclusions
of Utrecht, which stated that "our Confessional Standards admittedly
follow the infralapsarian presentation in respect to the doctrine of election,
but that it is evident...that this in no wise intended to exclude or condemn
the supralapsarian presentation." Recent defenders of the supralapsarian
position have been Gerhardus Vos, Herman Hoeksema, and G.H. Kersten. F.