“Before the foundation of the world, by sheer grace, according to the free good pleasure of his will, [God] chose in Christ to salvation a definite number of particular people out of the entire human race which had fallen by its own fault from its original innocence into sin and ruin.” — Canons of Dordt, First Point of Doctrine, Article 7

I’m going to get into a bit of Christian theology this week, so strap in!

Let me say up front that, while the assessment/opinion expressed here is Reformed-leaning, this post is mainly for informational/educational purposes. I don’t mean to be provocative — well, maybe just a tad — and I’m not looking to debate anything. In fact, I’m still processing it for myself. OK? OK…

Theologians and philosophers will sometimes speak of the “logical” order of certain things, which can be different from the chronological or sequential order. A sequential order is indeed logical when discussing things that occur within time. But, there are also cases when a number of things may occur simultaneously yet still require a logical order to help make sense of them. Calvinism (or any system that recognizes that God issues decrees, I suppose) concerns itself with the logical order of God’s decrees, which occurred in God’s mind prior to Creation. (See Ephesians 1, for example.) In particular, the focus is the logical order of the decree to order or permit the Fall in relation to the logical order of the decree to elect some and condemn others.

The big-brains use a couple of fifty-cent terms for the two main approaches: “supralapsarianism” (aka “antelapsarianism”) and “infralapsarianism” (aka “postlapsarianism”). A little intimidating, eh? In his book, Chosen for Life: The Case for Divine Election, Sam Storms explains the two:

“The term ‘supralapsarian’ is derived from two Latin words which, when combined, reflect the view that the decree of predestination (that is, the decree to elect and reprobate) precedes or is ‘above’ (supra) the decree concerning the fall (lapsus). ‘Infralapsarianism,’ on the other hand, contends that the decree of predestination is subsequent to or ‘below’ (infra) the decree concerning the fall. All supralapsarian schemes share one point in common: the decree of election/reprobation is antecedent to that concerning the fall. Similarly, all infralapsarian schemes share a common theme: the decree of election/reprobation is subsequent to that concerning the fall.”

You may be asking, “What do you mean ‘all the supralapsarian/infralapsarian schemes’? Are there more than one each?” Yes, several, in fact. In Divine Sovereignty And Human Choice, Tom Barnes quotes Storms’ outlines (mostly in footnotes) and then comes up with one of his own. (It is the biggest list I am aware of, except for the chart provided in B.B. Warfield’s The Plan of Salvation, though Warfield doesn’t break it down in the same way.) They are as follows…

Three Versions of Supralapsarianism

HIGH SUPRALAPSARIANISM:

1. The decree to elect and reprobate.
2. The decree to create all humanity.
3. The decree to ordain the fall.
4. The decree to provide salvation in Christ for the elect.
5. The decree to apply salvation to the elect through the Holy Spirit.

LOW SUPRALAPSARIANISM:

1. The decree to create all humanity.
2. The decree to elect and reprobate.
3. The decree to ordain the fall.
4. The decree to provide salvation in Christ for the elect.
5. The decree to apply salvation to the elect through the Holy Spirit.

TELEOLOGICAL SUPRALAPSARIANISM:

1. The decree to elect and reprobate.
2. The decree to apply salvation to the elect through the Holy Spirit.
3. The decree to provide salvation in Christ for the elect.
4. The decree to ordain the fall.
5. The decree to create all humanity.

Two Versions of Non-Calvinistic Infralapsarianism

ARMINIAN INFRALAPSARIANISM:

1. The decree to create all humanity.
2. The decree to permit the fall.
3. The decree to provide salvation in Christ for all people.
4. The decree to provide prevenient grace (a resistible grace) to all people, enabling them to believe.
5. The decree to elect those whom God “foreknows” will exercise faith in Christ and the decree to leave all others to the recompense of their sin.

UNIVERSALISTIC INFRALAPSARIANISM:

1. The decree to create all humanity.
2. The decree to permit the fall.
3. The decree to elect all humanity to eternal life and salvation.
4. The decree to provide salvation in Christ for all people.
5. The decree to apply salvation to all people through the Holy Spirit.

Three Versions of Calvinistic Infralapsarianism

HARD INFRALAPSARIANISM:

1. The decree to create all humanity.
2. The decree to ordain the fall.
3. The decree to elect and reprobate.
4. The decree to provide salvation in Christ for the elect.
5. The decree to apply salvation to the elect through the Holy Spirit.

AMYRALDIAN INFRALAPSARIANISM:

1. The decree to create all humanity.
2. The decree to permit the fall.
3. The decree to provide salvation in Christ for all humanity.
4. The decree to elect and reprobate.
5. The decree to apply salvation to the elect through the Holy Spirit.

SOFT INFRALAPSARIANISM:

1. The decree to create all humanity.
2. The decree to permit the fall.
3. The decree to elect and reprobate.
4. The decree to provide salvation in Christ for the elect.
5. The decree to apply salvation to the elect through the Holy Spirit.

[Note: Many Reformed writers use another term, “sublapsarianism“, as interchangeable with “infralapsarianism”. But, it is more accurate to equate sublapsarianism specifically with the Amyraldian variant above.]

“How does Molinism handle it?”, you might ask. While recognizing that Molinism de-emphasizes decretal theology, Barnes states, “Molinists appeal to a logical order in God’s knowledge (natural, middle, and free), which also implies a logical order in his will.” He then makes a good-faith attempt to construct a Molinist view based on the Arminian outline above. Thus,…

MOLINIST INFRALAPSARIANISM:

1. The decree to create all humanity.
2. The decree to permit the fall.
3. The decree to provide salvation in Christ for all people.
4. The decree to provide prevenient grace (a resistible grace) to all people, enabling them to believe.
5. Between #4 and #6 we must state God innately knows what each person would do in regard to Christ in the various circumstances in which he puts them.
6. The decree to elect those whom God knows innately will exercise faith in Jesus Christ given the world he has chosen to actualize, and the decree to leave all others to the wages of their sin and unbelief.
7. The decree to apply salvation in Christ through the Holy Spirit to all who believe.

The following is Barnes’ assessment:

“As we can see from this [Molinist] order, it preserves a reasonably strong view of God’s sovereignty and providence and, at the same time, clarifies that sin truly is the ground of condemnation and judgment and not merely ‘a providential means of executing the decree of reprobation formed irrespective of sin,’ which could call into question the justice of God. Of course, by this point in our discussion, we can see the problems in this order revolve around both the presence of prevenient grace (not taught in Scripture) and also the proposition that God’s governance of all things is dependent upon and limited by that which is outside himself, namely human choices. As such we need to look in a different direction for the logical order of God’s decrees.

Between the two main options of supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism, the latter appears to have a clear advantage because of the biblical emphasis upon man’s responsibility for sin, God’s just wrath poured out upon unrepentant sinners because of their sin, and also the distinction we have discovered in this chapter between how God moves toward and views his governance of righteous events vs. evil events. Of the different versions of infralapsarianism, the Calvinistic version of ‘soft infralapsarianism’ appears to be the best option. There are several reasons why this provides the best understanding of the order of God’s decrees.

To begin, it fits well with what we discovered in Chapters 2-3 about why God created the world in the way he did — permitting sin and evil that he might magnify his attributes, especially mercy and grace.

Yet, it also affirms that the fall is logically prior to election and reprobation, which does a better job of preserving God’s justice and highlighting that condemnation is genuinely and logically grounded in sin than does supralapsarianism.

Closely related is another reason: this position does a better job than supralapsarianism dealing with the question of hell and whether or not hell is a just option for the Calvinist.

This proposed order also preserves the truth that the atonement Christ accomplished was effective and particular. In other words, he truly did save a definite group of people — purchasing for them all they need for salvation and assuring all that must take place for them to be saved. This is opposed to the idea that Christ merely made man salvable, if they would add faith in Christ to Christ’s work.

Additionally, this order does not make use of prevenient grace, nor does it make God’s decrees dependent upon or limited by human choices.

Finally, soft infralapsarianism leaves room for the distinction between God’s causative and permissive governance as outlined in this chapter.”

I found the outlines of the different approaches to the decretal order to be quite interesting. But, of course, further study is necessary to really grasp the differences and their implications. (I’ll probably be picking up a copy of Storms’ book, among others.) I also thought that Barnes’ assessment was valuable but a bit sparse when taken alone. Reading his book certainly helps (though I really wish it had a subject index!), such that I’m pretty sure I agree with him on most, possibly all, points. Still mulling it all over, though.

I hope you found this post helpful and/or intriguing enough to pick up a book or two to investigate for yourself. Let me know if you have a favorite book that addresses the topic (and which position, if any, the author takes). In the end, though, we’ll never fully understand. The bottom line is that God created humanity, humans sin, and the only way to escape the Father’s just wrath is salvation through Jesus Christ.

P.S. If you’re interested, a couple other articles you may want to check out which describe and wrestle with these positions are here and here.

Tags: Amyraldism, Calvinist, creation, decretal theology, divine election, divine sovereignty, Fall of Man, God's decrees, human free will, infralapsarianism, lapsarian views, logical order, Molinism, redemption, Reformed, reprobation, salvation in Christ, Sam Storms, supralapsarianism, the case for soft infralapsarianism, theological terms, Tom Barnes

Posted in Religion
No Comments Yet Posted by sirrahc