Supra, Infra and Biblical Theology
Rev. Michael Brown
Pastor of Christ United Reformed Church, Santee, CA
(Originally published in The Outlook, July/August
2005)
Click here for printable PDF
The debate between supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism
has caused many a sound theologian to throw up his hands
in bewilderment and utter words akin to R.L. Dabney’s
reaction: “In my opinion this is a question which never
ought to have been raised.” But whether or not Dabney
was right is beside the point at the present time, since
more that 400 years of theologizing has stamped the ordering
of the decrees upon the Reformed tradition. Positions have
been taken, schemes have been developed, consequences have
occurred. Thus, if we are going to do theology in the twenty-first
century, we must be able to give an answer to such things
and work out the most biblically consistent system.
This article will argue that of the two systems traditionally
espoused (i.e. supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism),
supralapsarianism is less consistent with the vital biblical-theological
eschatology principle since it essentially makes creation
a means to redemption. In order to unpack and defend this
thesis, several brief observations will be made. First, comment
must be made of the legitimacy of our inquiry. Second, the
biblical-theological eschatology principle will be concisely
explained from Scripture. Third, supralapsarianism’s
failure to adhere to this principle will be examined. Fourth,
infra-lapsarianism as a more viable option will be presented.
Finally, a reformulation of infralapsarianism will be offered
in order to maintain its adherence to the eschatology principle
while addressing valid supralapsarian concerns.
The Legitimacy of the Inquiry
Is it legitimate to speak of the
decrees in the plural? The whole notion of ordering the
decrees is often
dismissed as an illegitimate argument since it
seeks to
separate and categorize hypothetical events that take place in the mind of
God. Because God has archetypal knowledge of all
things and his eternal decrees are
ultimately one, arranging a plurality of decrees is seen by many as unjustifiable.
But while it is clear that God’s archetypal knowledge conceives of only
one decree, his ectypal revelation, with which our finite minds must do theology,
compels us to speak of the decrees as if they are many. The same is true of God’s
attributes: archetypally, God has one simple attribute (i.e. his perfection),
but ectypally, we speak of many. As Louis Berkhof points out, we must understand
this distinction while still embracing our necessary ectypal language:
There is, therefore, no series of
decrees in God, but simply one comprehensive plan, embracing
all that comes to pass. Our finite comprehension, however,
constrains us to make distinctions, and this accounts for the fact that
we
often speak of
the decrees of God in the plural. The manner of speaking is perfectly legitimate,
provided we do not lose sight of the unity of the divine decree, and of
the inseparable connection of the various decrees as we
conceive of them.
The Creator/creature distinction
is what drives our ordering of the decrees and our systematizing
of theology in general. The following analysis, therefore,
is legitimate and in no way “off limits.”
The Eschatology Principle
The biblical-theological principle
of eschatology, in its most basic form, simply means
that Adam
was not created in order to fall and be
redeemed,
but was created
in order to enjoy eschatological life. When Adam breached the Covenant
of Works, he destroyed the possibility of entering in to the glory
of God’s consummate
kingdom with all of his progeny. Redemption by the second Adam, who fulfilled
the Covenant of Works (and the Pactum Salutis), was introduced in order to bring
all of God’s elect to their eschatological goal of resurrection life in
the eschaton.
While no explicit promise of the consummation is given in the opening
chapters of Genesis, it is nevertheless entailed by the presence
of the Tree of
Life in the Garden of Eden (Gen 2.9; 3.22; cf. Rev 22.14) and clearly
implied in the
rest of Scripture. We read in Romans 3.23, for example, that, “all
have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” The sin
and fall that Paul has in mind here is Adam’s sin
and consequent fall, of which all humanity is guilty because Adam
was our federal head and representative. This is clear
from Paul’s use of the clause “glory of God,” which
are the same words he uses in 5.12 to explain the effects of original
sin in Adam’s
covenantal headship. Thus, had man (i.e. Adam and all those he
represented) not sinned, man would have attained
the glory of God. This “glory of God” Paul
explains in 8.18ff as eschatological glory, viz., the glory of
resurrection life in the age to come. Falling short of the consummation,
the elect are brought
to their blessed end only through faith in the perfect obedience
of Christ.iii
Another crucial text to observe is 1 Corinthians 15.45-49. In his
breathtaking explanation and defense of bodily resurrection in
chapter 15, Paul brings
his readers face to face with the eschatological goal of creation.
In verses 45-49,
which is the center of his cosmological argument, Paul explains
that God’s
revealed order of life is first the natural (psucikon),
then the spiritual (pneumatikon).
Paul deliberately cites Gen 2.7 to highlight Adam’s sinless,
prelapsarian state in comparison to Christ’s resurrected,
glorified state. By asserting such, Paul is showing that the Fall
is not condoned by God as the necessary “first” episode.
As Peter Jones points out, “[I]n Paul’s thinking, sin
is not the ‘first’ event.
The good creation is. So it is not Adam as the ‘first’ sinner,
but Adam as the ‘first’ created human being that Paul
has in mind in v.45.” iv
Furthermore, Paul’s analogy
of Adam and Christ in 15.21-22 gives added weight to
15.45b; the basis of the last Adam becoming a
life-giving spirit is His fulfillment of that which the first
Adam failed to accomplish, viz., the
Covenant of Works. Thus, Paul is developing the eschatological
implications that he finds in Gen 2.7,.v thereby
showing that the spiritual, resurrected body is not the fulfillment
of the body of sin, but the eschatological fulfillment of
the natural, created body in the garden.
Supralapsarianism’s
Inconsistency
While God’s revelation in redemptive history reveals that Adam was not
created for the purpose of sin and redemption, supralapsarianism ultimately affirms
such by ordering the decrees in the following manner:
-
The glory of God
in Christ and His church.
-
The election of Christ as the
Head of the church.
-
The elect church in Christ. (and
reprobation)
-
The fall of all men.
-
The creation
of the world and man.vi
By placing the decree to save and
damn rational creatures before (or “above,” hence
the Latin “supra”) the decree to permit the
Fall, reprobation and election become equally absolute.
The decree to permit the Fall is thereby executed
in order to obtain the goal of election and reprobation.
Likewise, the decree to create is necessary in order
to save and damn for the glory of God. In other
words, election and reprobation is what it’s all
about. The Fall and creation are
mere means to accomplish that end.vii
By rigidly applying this teleological
principle to the divine decrees, however, supralapsarianism
cannot do justice
to
the biblical-theological
eschatology
principle. Considering 1 Cor 15.45-49, supralapsarianism
finds itself at odds with the Pauline
eschatology. While Paul establishes the spiritual to
be the eschatological fulfillment of the natural,
supralapsarianism on the other hand,
seems to affirm the spiritual to
be the eschatological fulfillment of the Fall.
This cannot
be escaped by the supralapsarians since their system
asserts
the objective
of the
divine decrees
as God’s glory in election and reprobation.viii
Infralapsarianism: A More Biblical
Solution?
The classic alternative to supralapsarianism
is infralapsarianism (also known as “sub-lapsarianism”), which typically runs as follows:
-
God, with the design
to reveal his own glory, that is, the perfections of
his own nature,
determined
to:
-
Create the world.
-
Permit the fall
of man.
-
Elect from the mass of fallen
men a multitude whom no man could number as “vessels
of mercy.”Send his Son for
their redemption.
-
Leave the residue
of mankind, as He left the fallen
angels, to
suffer
the
just punishment
of their sins.ix
Infralapsarianism, which is favored
by the language of most Reformed confessions, is generally
accepted
because
it does
a better job
of avoiding the problem
of making God the active author of sin.x Whereas
the supralapsarian scheme posits sin as a
necessary means
to effect election
and reprobation, infralapsarianism
sees the opposite; election and reprobation
are decrees of God in response to
His permitting the Fall of man.xi Consequently,
in the supralapsarian view, God
reprobates by electing rational creatures
to damnation without the consideration of
sin
or justice. On
the other hand, infralapsarians
believe God reprobates
by electing His chosen ones for salvation
from a common mass of sinners
and leaving the rest in their sins to face
their rightful judgment. The former
views sin
and reprobation positively; the latter views
sin and reprobation negatively.
There is considerable biblical
evidence for infralapsarianism. Jesus told His disciples: “You did not choose Me, but I chose you…I chose you out
of the world” (Jn 15.16, 19; italics mine). Here we see that it is a larger
mass of individuals from which Christ chose His own. Likewise, Paul wrote to
the Ephesians: “He chose us in Him [that is, Christ] before the foundation
of the world” (Eph 1.4; italics
mine). Our election is in Christ; this
clearly
shows that we are conceived as fallen
and in need of a redeemer.
In Romans 9, a passage often cited
by supralapsarians in support of their view,
Paul uses infralapsarian
language: “Does not the potter
have power over the clay, from
the same lump to make one vessel
for honor and one for dishonor?” (Rom
9.21; italics mine). We should not
understand this “same lump” as
one universal group of human beings
in a common state of neutrality; rather,
we should understand this “same
lump” as one universal group
of human beings in a common state of
sin and misery. This should be clear
from the fact
that Paul calls these vessels, “vessels
of wrath prepared for destruction” (9.22)
and “vessels of mercy…prepared
beforehand for glory” (9.23).
While both vessels are described as “prepared,”xii “mercy” and “wrath” imply
that the elected objects are first
conceived as sinful and deserving judgment.
As Dabney rightly points out, “[T]hose
virtues (mercy and justice) are relative,
they pre-suppose their object, do not
make it.”xiii Sin
is not on account of damnation; rather,
damnation is on account of sin.
Infralapsarianism
doesn’t claim to have a comprehensive
answer for why God permitted
sin to enter the cosmos. Ultimately,
infralapsarians
must concede
that God decreed the Fall (an objection
readily made by supralapsarians).
Nevertheless, because it views reprobation
and election
as God’s
response to the Fall (instead of
vice-versa), infralapsarianism offers
a system which
more carefully
protects the justice of God. But
more to the point of our thesis,
infralapsarianism
also upholds the integrity of creation
to a degree that supralapsarianism
cannot. Infralapsarians do not posit
creation
as
a means to redemption in the way
that supralapsarians do.
For this
reason, it must be accepted
that infralapsarianism is more
consistent with
the eschatology principle.
If the eschatological fulfillment
of good creation is consummated
re-creation, then redemption is not a necessary
means to achieve
that end. Redemption, rather, is
God’s
response to the Fall in order that
creation will reach its eschatological
goal. This
is the point that supralapsarianism
seems to miss altogether.
A Reformulation of Infralapsarianism
Of course, supralapsarians often
protest that infralapsarianism fails to do
justice to the
teleological principle
of the divine decrees
and, consequently,
the glory
and sovereignty of God.
The fact that Romans 5.14 testifies of
Adam as a “type
of the one who was to come” may
add weight to their objection.
For this reason,
a reformulation of infralapsarianism
is offered below in order
to answer this objection
and still
uphold the integrity
of creation and its eschatological
goal. In other words,
it must be affirmed that
while creation is not
merely
a means to the end of
redemption, and while
there would have been
a glorious
eschatological consummation
if Adam had kept the
covenant
of works, nevertheless,
God in his infinite wisdom
foreordained
Adam's covenant breach
in order to magnify the
glory of his grace by
achieving the
eschatological goal of
creation via the redemption
in
Christ the second Adam.
Thus, a possible modification
might
look something
like this:
-
God, for
the sake of His glory,
decreed that human
beings would
attain eternal
glory with
Him by means
of a federal
covenant of
works.
-
Decree to create
all things.
-
Decree
to subsume the human race under
the federal headship
of Adam
in a covenant
of works
-
Decree
to permit the Fall and thus
allow the covenant
with Adam
not to
be consummated.
-
Decree
to elect from the
mass of
fallen humanity
a countless
multitude to
possession
of eternal
glory through the
covenant of works
with Christ (his
execution of
the Pactum
Salutis);
and
to reprobate
the rest of
fallen humanity
to
eternal
perdition by
leaving
them, as
he left the
fallen angels,
to suffer
the just
punishment
of their
sins.
There are several viable advantages
to this scheme. First, it
incorporates the
best argument
of the
supralapsarians (i.e. the
teleological
principle) and of
the infralapsarians (God
elects and reprobates sinners rather
than neutral
human beings).
In this way, both
God’s sovereignty
and justice are most protected.
Second, it gives integrity
to the original creation
and the covenant
of works.
Third, the first Adam,
while in a covenant with
God, was from the very
beginning
a type of the One to come
(Rom. 5:14). Fourth,
it remedies the typical
covenant-less character
of most traditional treatments
of the order of the decrees.
Conclusion
In many ways, finding the
perfect method of
ordering the decrees
is like finding
the perfect
analogy
to describe
the Trinity.
It is impossible.
The ectypal
theology of the pilgrim
can only go so far. The Creator/creature
distinction must
not be pressed. Yet, as
we must responsibly
systematize our understanding
of the
revelation given to
us, infralapsarianism
(and/or its posited re-formulation)
seems to offer the
most biblically consistent
scheme of
such a profound subject.
Among the number
of its attractive advantages over supralapsarianism,
infralapsarianism
has the benefit of
more
readily adhering
to the biblical-theological
eschatology principle
and,
consequently, upholding
the integrity of God’s good creation.
iDabney, R.L.,
Systematic Theology (1871, repr. Edinburgh: The Banner
of Truth Trust, 1996), p.233. It is worth noting
that Dabney also adds: “Both schemes are illogical…[b]ut
the Sublapsarian [or Infralapsarian] is far more Scriptural
in its tendencies, and its general spirit far more honourable
to God.”
iiBerkhof, Louis,
Systematic Theology (1938, repr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1996), p.102
iiiPaul sets
forth the same concept in Romans 6.23: “The wages
of sin [is] death, but the gift of God [is] eternal life
in Christ
Jesus our Lord.” Again,
this is Adam’s sin as federal head of all humanity. He (and by consequence
we) has by his disobedience fallen short of the gift and glory of God that
was laid out before him. It is only through the obedience of the Last Adam
(Christ
Jesus our Lord) that the gift and glory are attained.
ivPeter Jones, “Paul
Confronts Paganism in the Church: A Case Study of Corinthians
15:45,” a paper delivered to the ETS in Toronto November 20, 2002
(presently unpublished), p.13
vThis point is
even more impressive when considering his inspired and
Apostolic modification of Gen 2.7 by his insertion
of the word protos.
viiHoeksema,
Herman, Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Reformed Free
Publishing
Association, 1966), p.161. It should be
noted that while Hoeksema (himself
a militant supralapsarian) presents this order and defends it vigorously,
he also
offers his own personal modification of supralapsarianism in order
to make room for the establishment of the covenant. It
runs as follows:
1) God
wants to reveal
His own eternal glory in the establishment of His covenant. 2) For
the realization of this purpose the Son becomes the Christ,
the image of
the invisible God,
the firstborn of every creature, that in Him as the first begotten
of the dead all
the fullness of God might dwell. 3) For that Christ and the revelation
of all His fullness the church is decreed and all the elect. 4) For
the purpose
of
realizing this church in Christ, and, therefore, the glory of Christ,
the reprobate are
determined as vessels of wrath. 5) Finally, in the counsel of God all
other things in heaven and on earth are designed as means to the realization
of both election
and reprobation, and therefore, of the glory of Christ and His church.
viiSee Turretin,
Francis, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, vol. I (Phillipsburg:
P & R, 1994), p.341ff in which he makes this point
in his argument against supralapsarianism.
viiiPerhaps this
explains why many supralapsarians, such as H. Hoeksema,
reject the notion of Adam being in a covenant
of works, and consequently
miss
the biblical-theological
eschatology principle. While it is sometimes noted that the biblical
theology giant Geerhardus Vos was himself a supralapsarian, it
remains unclear to
me where and to what extent he spells this out in any detail. It
should be understood
that Vos’ hand-written transcripts of his lectures on systematic
theology (which exist only in Dutch), was penned during his first
teaching job at the
Theological School of the Christian Reformed Church in Grand Rapids
(what is now Calvin Theological Seminary). During this time (1888-1893),
Vos was responsible
for a “wide range of subjects from Greek grammar to systematic
theology and carried an instructional load that at times was as
high as 25 hours per week” (see
introduction to Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation [Phillipsburg: P & R, 1980], p.x). It wasn’t until some
forty years later, after decades of teaching as the chair of Biblical
Theology at Princeton Seminary, that Vos
published The Pauline Eschatology (1930, repr. Phillipsburg: P & R,
1994).
ixAs found in
Hodge, Charles, Systematic Theology, vol. 2 (repr. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999),
pp.319-20
xWhile not explicitly
repudiating supralapsarianism, the following are examples
of clear and definite infralapsarian
language in
Reformed confessions: the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church
of England
(1563): Art. XVII;
the
Irish
Articles (1615):
Arts. 13-14; the Canons of Dort (1618-19): I.7, 10, 15; the
Westminster Confession of Faith (1647): Art.3.6-7; the
Larger Catechism (1648):
QQ.12, 13, 30; the
Shorter Catechism (1648): QQ.19-20.
xiHence the Latin “infra,” meaning “below.” The
decree to elect is listed below the decree to permit the
Fall, in contradistinction
to supralapsarianism.
xiiIt should
be noted that Paul uses two different verbs with different
constructions for “prepared” in vv.22-23. In
v.22, Paul uses the Perfect Passive Participle katertismena which means “to prepare for a purpose” (BAGD).
In v.23, Paul uses the Aorist Active Indicative, third-person,
singular proetoimasen which means “prepare beforehand” (BAGD)
and is only used one other time in the New Testament, viz.,
Eph 2.10. The difference in construction makes
it very probable that we should not think of God as preparing
these vessels in an equally absolute manner.
xiiiDabney, Systematic
Theology, p.234
|
