Election / Reprobation

[zippy2006]

The supralapsarian believes that the divine decree of election and reprobation logically preceded the decree of the fall—which means that, when God decreed to elect some and not others, they were contemplated as not yet fallen. It seems to me that their reprobation in this case is primarily an act of divine sovereignty and secondarily an act of divine justice. Such is not the case for the infralapsarian, for whom the reprobation of undeserving and condemned sinners is primarily an act of divine justice. It may be correct, then, to say that the infralapsarian "posits a quality of freedom within Adam's sin that the supralapsarian cannot."

Okay, interesting. Years ago I <tried to post a similar question> but did not end up receiving an answer. You seem to have provided a clear answer, at least as far as infralapsarianism goes.

That is what Reformed theology teaches, at any rate. Chapter 9 of the Westminster Confession of Faith states that God endowed the will of man with a natural liberty that is neither forced nor inclined necessarily toward good or evil, a freedom and natural ability to will and to do what is good and pleasing to God. However, this is man in his original state before the fall. The Confession goes on to say that man lost this freedom when he fell into a state of sin by his transgression, completely losing all ability to choose any spiritual good that accompanies salvation. Yes, Adam's sin was free.

Okay. As someone who is critical of Calvinism, this is good to hear.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you are talking about. Can you elaborate on this a bit, and provide a cited quote or two?

After reviewing an article on the topic, it seems I may have slightly misunderstood Calvin's position regarding necessitation (Lane, "Bondage and Liberation in Calvin's Treatise against Pighius," Calvin Studies IX).

I wonder, though, why you chose infralapsarianism over supralapsarianism? Do you perceive serious errors in supralapsarianism?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

"Double predestination" vs "Single predestination"

This area of idea has resulted in genocide and painting entire peoples as demonic, the fruit does not support the premise. God does not show favoritism.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

[Why did] you chose infralapsarianism over supralapsarianism? Do you perceive serious errors in supralapsarianism?

I think that I sort of defaulted into the infralapsarian view when I came around to Reformed theology, on account of the confessional standards that I had been studying which were, therefore, shaping my views (e.g., Canons of Dort). Evidently, all major Reformed confessions are either implicitly or explicitly infralapsarian. Of course, I would not realize until later that I was infralapsarian—that is, when I first encountered the term supralapsarian and became curious. After looking into these two views, I became intentionally infralapsarian.

The most serious problem I had with the supralapsarian view, as I understood it, is that the object of God's decree of election and reprobation is unfallen humanity. But the question arises almost immediately: For what are these being elected? Salvation, it would seem. But salvation from what? After all, man at this point in the logic is not yet contemplated as sinners. It also seemed contrary to certain scriptures, such as Romans 9: In verse 21 it says that God made different vessels from "the same lump" of clay, which ought to be fallen humanity, because in verse 22 some of those vessels are called "objects of wrath" prepared for destruction, which should underscore that this is fallen humanity. So, it seemed to me that preterition contemplated man as fallen (i.e., infralapsarianism). And, of course, there is the relationship between the ordo salutis and the pactum salutis (i.e., the pretemporal, intratrinitarian agreement between the Father and Son, wherein the Father promises to redeem an elect people and, in turn, the Son volunteers to earn the salvation of his people by becoming incarnate and acting as the surety and mediator of the covenant of grace). If the covenant of redemption precedes (and I say grounds) the ordering of salvation, then it must be infralapsarian—otherwise, what are these people being redeemed from? And I haven't even addressed the conflict between supralapsarianism and common grace (as demonstrated by such men as Kuyper and Hoeksema), which is a historical sore spot in the Reformed community.

I have never been entirely comfortable with this infralapsarian view, however. It sufficed as a default position but I've always been possessed by a peculiar attraction to the supralapsarian view for some reason that I could never quite put my finger on. (Maybe it's just that I am naturally drawn toward recalcitrant problems, always wanting to find a way to solve them, like how to accept evolution within a theology of creation.) I mean, some of the most influential mentors in my spiritual development have been supralapsarians, such as Abraham Kuyper, Geerhardus Vos, and Arthur Pink. There are also some theologians I esteem who maintain a nuanced form of supralapsarianism, such as Louis Berkhof, Cornelius Van Til, and Robert L. Reymond. Clearly, there must be something I am missing. So, I have always remained open to the supralapsarian view.

 

[anetazo]

Election is predestined, chosen before foundation of the world, read ephesians chapter 1, first Peter chapter 1. The position for Elect can't be volunteered for. God judged the election in the first earth age. Jesus will intervene in lives of the Election.
Those with Free Will, Jesus will not intervene, unless they ask Jesus. Those who have free will, have spirit of slumber, read Isaiah chapter 6. Gods Elect have holy spirit. The majority have spirit of stupor. I documented this. Can the atheist be converted??. Yes. Acts chapter 3, If they repent and conform to God's standard. Now you know the difference between Election and Free Will.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Election is predestined, chosen before foundation of the world.

Speaking for myself, I don't think that election is predestination (i.e., the same thing). Rather, as I understand Romans 8:29-30, predestination follows from election, as one link in a chain follows another: "Those whom he foreknew he also predestined" (v. 29)—in the same way that "called" follows from predestined, "justified" follows from called, and "glorified" follows from justified (v. 30).

(The word translated "foreknew" here is proegno, the aorist tense, third-person singular form of the verb proginosko. It's not a noun referring to God's prescience, but rather a verb referring to God's forelove or foreordination of specific individuals to salvation. In other words, God knew them in a personal and intimate way and set his affection and purpose on them before the foundation of the world. This is consistent with the biblical usage of the verb "to know," which often implies a relational or covenantal bond.)
​

Can the atheist be converted? Yes.

Of course. The Holy Spirit is far more powerful than any sinner. After all, he converted this atheist (i.e., me).

Now you know the difference between Election and Free Will.

Yes, election is a divine act and free will was a human property. Yes, "was." We lost that freedom of the will in the garden of Eden.

 

[zippy2006]

I think that I sort of defaulted into the infralapsarian view when I came around to Reformed theology, on account of the confessional standards that I had been studying which were, therefore, shaping my views (e.g., Canons of Dort). Evidently, all major Reformed confessions are either implicitly or explicitly infralapsarian. Of course, I would not realize until later that I was infralapsarian—that is, when I first encountered the term supralapsarian and became curious. After looking into these two views, I became intentionally infralapsarian.

The most serious problem I had with the supralapsarian view, as I understood it, is that the object of God's decree of election and reprobation is unfallen humanity. But the question arises almost immediately: For what are these being elected? Salvation, it would seem. But salvation from what? After all, man at this point in the logic is not yet contemplated as sinners. It also seemed contrary to certain scriptures, such as Romans 9: In verse 21 it says that God made different vessels from "the same lump" of clay, which ought to be fallen humanity, because in verse 22 some of those vessels are called "objects of wrath" prepared for destruction, which should underscore that this is fallen humanity. So, it seemed to me that preterition contemplated man as fallen (i.e., infralapsarianism). And, of course, there is the relationship between the ordo salutis and the pactum salutis (i.e., the pretemporal, intratrinitarian agreement between the Father and Son, wherein the Father promises to redeem an elect people and, in turn, the Son volunteers to earn the salvation of his people by becoming incarnate and acting as the surety and mediator of the covenant of grace). If the covenant of redemption precedes (and I say grounds) the ordering of salvation, then it must be infralapsarian—otherwise, what are these people being redeemed from? And I haven't even addressed the conflict between supralapsarianism and common grace (as demonstrated by such men as Kuyper and Hoeksema), which is a historical sore spot in the Reformed community.

I have never been entirely comfortable with this infralapsarian view, however. It sufficed as a default position but I've always been possessed by a peculiar attraction to the supralapsarian view for some reason that I could never quite put my finger on. (Maybe it's just that I am naturally drawn toward recalcitrant problems, always wanting to find a way to solve them, like how to accept evolution within a theology of creation.) I mean, some of the most influential mentors in my spiritual development have been supralapsarians, such as Abraham Kuyper, Geerhardus Vos, and Arthur Pink. There are also some theologians I esteem who maintain a nuanced form of supralapsarianism, such as Louis Berkhof, Cornelius Van Til, and Robert L. Reymond. Clearly, there must be something I am missing. So, I have always remained open to the supralapsarian view.

Very interesting. Thank you for sharing.

Regarding your affinity for supralapsarianism, there is an old debate within the Catholic Church as to whether the Son would have become incarnate even if Adam had not sinned. I don't know a great deal about Reformed theology, but it seems that some theologians such as Karl Barth would follow the Franciscans in holding that the Son would have become incarnate even if Adam had not sinned. In that way Barth has a theology which places a very strong emphasis on Christology and the decree of the Incarnation--an even stronger emphasis than salvation or sin. Now I don't know if Barth was a supralapsarian per se, but there is an elegance in supralapsarianism insofar as it contains similar ideas.

In <this thread> we spoke a bit about the differences between infra- and supralapsarianism insofar as they relate to God's justice, and there you pointed out that at least half of the worries about the injustice of Calvinism only obtain on supralapsarianism. I was wondering if this had an impact on your decision in favor of infralapsarianism? That the decree of reprobation prior to the Fall could be unjust?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

"Double predestination" vs "Single predestination"

What happens here if I don't believe Adam & Eve were actual, historical individuals? Then what?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Regarding your affinity for supralapsarianism, there is an old debate within the [Roman] Catholic Church as to whether the Son would have become incarnate even if Adam had not sinned. I don't know a great deal about Reformed theology, but it seems that some theologians such as Karl Barth would follow the Franciscans in holding that the Son would have become incarnate even if Adam had not sinned.

I am only recently familiar with this view, having just purchased the book Incarnation Anyway: Arguments for Supralapsarian Christology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008) by Edwin van Driel, in which he makes that same argument. He does not seem to have any sympathy for the felix culpa view; from what I gather, he argues for a new construction that draws on insights from the supralapsarian views of Friedrich Schleiermacher, Isaak Dorner, and Karl Barth. He also argues that supralapsarian Christology should be based on a narrative approach that reads scriptures as a unified story of God's action in history culminating in Christ, which is what initially motivated me to buy the book (for I have a similar interest).

I gravitated toward this book after reading David W. Congdon, "Creatio Continua Ex Electione: A Post-Barthian Revision of the Doctrine of Creatio Ex Nihilo," Koinonia 22 (2010), pp. 33-53, as a result of his citations of van Driel. I am drawn more to Congdon's argument than van Driel's at this point but, admittedly, I haven't yet read Incarnation Anyway. Congdon argues for a type of post-Barthian supralapsarianism, wherein God's decision to elect Jesus Christ is simultaneously God's decision to create; God elects, and creation is brought into intelligible existence. Election is logically antecedent to creation but they are chronological coincidents. Thus creation has an intelligible Christological context, establishing a material connection between creation and redemption, insofar as they coincide in the person of Jesus Christ as the Word in the beginning through whom creation came to be.

In <this thread> we spoke a bit about the differences between infra- and supralapsarianism insofar as they relate to God's justice, and there you pointed out that at least half of the worries about the injustice of Calvinism only obtain on supralapsarianism. I was wondering if this had an impact on your decision in favor of infralapsarianism? That the decree of reprobation prior to the Fall could be unjust?

As I said, I was an accidental infralapsarian as a result of the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession of Faith even before I knew that was a thing. I learned about infralapsarianism when I stumbled across the term supralapsarianism in some old article by Phillip R. Johnson (2000). That started me down a theological rabbit hole, the results of which led me to becoming an intentional infralapsarian; I now knew the term, what it meant, and that it reflected my views pretty closely. But, over the years, I have warmed up to the supralapsarian view because I have seen articulations of it that seem to not make God unjust. But don't ask me about that because I have spent the last ten years working very intensely on an evolutionary creation theology. I am quite far removed from my supralapsarian studies, which I am only just now picking back up (with this recent purchase).

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

What happens here if I don't believe Adam and Eve were actual, historical individuals? Then what?

Without a historical Adam and Eve, I don't think one can maintain a Reformed covenant theology. This will not bother those who don't have such a view in the first place.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Without a historical Adam and Eve, I don't think one can maintain a Reformed covenant theology. This will not bother those who don't have such a view in the first place.

That's a good point!

 

[zippy2006]

I am only recently familiar with this view, having just purchased the book Incarnation Anyway: Arguments for Supralapsarian Christology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008) by Edwin van Driel, in which he makes that same argument. He does not seem to have any sympathy for the felix culpa view; from what I gather, he argues for a new construction that draws on insights from the supralapsarian views of Friedrich Schleiermacher, Isaak Dorner, and Karl Barth. He also argues that supralapsarian Christology should be based on a narrative approach that reads scriptures as a unified story of God's action in history culminating in Christ, which is what initially motivated me to buy the book (for I have a similar interest).

I gravitated toward this book after reading David W. Congdon, "Creatio Continua Ex Electione: A Post-Barthian Revision of the Doctrine of Creatio Ex Nihilo," Koinonia 22 (2010), pp. 33-53, as a result of his citations of van Driel. I am drawn more to Congdon's argument than van Driel's at this point but, admittedly, I haven't yet read Incarnation Anyway. Congdon argues for a type of post-Barthian supralapsarianism, wherein God's decision to elect Jesus Christ is simultaneously God's decision to create; God elects, and creation is brought into intelligible existence. Election is logically antecedent to creation but they are chronological coincidents. Thus creation has an intelligible Christological context, establishing a material connection between creation and redemption, insofar as they coincide in the person of Jesus Christ as the Word in the beginning through whom creation came to be.

Very interesting! And you were already pulling on the thread even before I mentioned it.

My exposure to Barth comes more through his interactions with Erich Przywara and Hans Urs von Balthasar than anything else, so my knowledge is scanty.

As I said, I was an accidental infralapsarian as a result of the Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession of Faith even before I knew that was a thing. I learned about infralapsarianism when I stumbled across the term supralapsarianism in some old article by Phillip R. Johnson (2000). That started me down a theological rabbit hole, the results of which led me to becoming an intentional infralapsarian; I now knew the term, what it meant, and that it reflected my views pretty closely. But, over the years, I have warmed up to the supralapsarian view because I have seen articulations of it that seem to not make God unjust. But don't ask me about that because I have spent the last ten years working very intensely on an evolutionary creation theology. I am quite far removed from my supralapsarian studies, which I am only just now picking back up (with this recent purchase).

Okay, fair enough. Good luck with your evolutionary creation theology.