Here is something I wrote a few years back, perhaps it will be fodder to stimulate thought on this subject. If your head hurts and is spinning when done reading, then you did it right.
Originally, the difference between Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism was over the fall of man—--was it decreed by God. Was the sin of Adam predestined by God (Supra) or did God merely allow it and use it for His benefit (Infra)? Calvin held the Supra position.
After Calvin’s era the dispute changed emphasis. Many Infras agreed that the fall was part of the decree and many Supras admitted that God weighed men’s sin into His decree.
Both camps understand that God’s decrees as eternal, without temporal succession. The original dispute over whether God decreed the fall has passed; if you are Reformed (not Arminian) then God decreed the fall; both Supra and Infras agree God planned the fall in His decree. Both reject the idea that God is, or could be, the author of sin.
The debate narrowed. Supras allow God to permit sin, admitting Adam could not have not sinned. Infras say God decreed Adam’s fall into sin, yet the decree only permitted sin rather than mandated it.
Supras emphasize the positive decree for sin--—thus heading in the direction of making God the author of sin. Infra’s emphasize God as permitting or allowing sin--—thus heading toward the error of Arminianism (free-agents).
However, Infras and Supras deny equally that God is the author of sin. Even in God's permission or allowance of Adam's sin, both agree sin was a certainty.
Supra’s position is misstated by some, in which the Supra become guilty of God predestining men for eternal destruction, simply by His will, like a tyrant, without regard to men’s sin. In this error God simply destroys His creatures to show His attributes. Supras actually are careful to add that the damnation by God of the wicked is an act of His will. This act of condemnation results from God’s Divine Justice before men’s sin.
According to Supras, man is predestinated to be created and then to fall. According to Infras man is predestined by God while created and while fallen.
Supras follow this decree of redemption: God decrees the salvation of some and the damnation of the rest, in His mind, prior to creation. In time, God creates His elect and the reprobate. God allows the fall. God justifies the elect and condemns the non-elect.
Infras follow this decree of redemption: God decrees to make men holy and blessed. God allows men to fall by their own self-determination of will. God then decrees to save some of the guilty. God permits the rest to continue in their sin and will punish them as their sin deserves.
According to Supras, God always planned from eternity past to act upon His elect whom He foreknew; there was never a moment that God did not recognize their special status--—the elect were always God’s beloved.
According to Infras, this personal attention toward the elect did not occur until after the fall, when God decreed who the elect were and decreed to save them.
Supralapsarian position is aided by: Ps 115:3, Prov 16:4, Isa 10:15, 45:9, Jer 18:6, Matt 11:25-26, 20:15, Rom 9:17,19-21. The Supras use the potter as a picture of God’s sovereignty over His creation—--to make a vessel for glory and others for damnation--—all prior to creation ("Why didst Thou make me thus?"). The emphasis shows God as decreeing to save prior to creation. Example: Jesus says, "I will utter things hidden from the foundation of the world" (Matt 13:35).
The Supras have an answer as to why God created the world and permitted the fall, while the Infra’s are unsure. The Supras give full justice to God. The Infra’s must ultimately say too, that God decreed the fall by God’s Sovereign good pleasure.
Supras, however, by stating God did not mandate sin, but decreed it to happen, fail to find a solution to the problem of sin. They cannot say that God decreed to bring sin into the world by His own direct means. Supras cannot go beyond this: That God willed to permit sin. Man is certain to be created and certain to fall (creabilis et labilis).
Supras do not allow God to decree both election and damnation equally. Infras state that Christ as Mediator of the covenant of grace can only be thought of as Infra—--that is, there can only be a mediator after the entrance of sin (something to mediate).
Infralapsarian position is aided by: Matt 11:25-26, John 15:19, Rom 8:28,30; 9:15-16; Eph 1:4-12; 2Tim 1:9. These passages imply the fall of man came before God’s election unto salvation. The Reformed Churches in their official standards have always adopted the Infra position (Synod of Dort, Westminster Assembly).
Objections to the Infra position are: It does not solve the sin problem (neither does the Supra position). They avoid God willing sin, making God to only permit sin.
Does this mean that sin was permitted but unaccounted for? Did sin frustrate God’s plan? To say yes is to join the Arminians. Infras make sin God’s permissive decree -- permitted yet definite to occur. If asked why God would decree to permit sin, they must state it is God’s good pleasure to do so, and come into agreement with the Supra camp.
Is the reprobation of the wicked also God’s good pleasure then? The Infra will say no, making the decree of God toward the reprobate conditional--—which leads again toward Arminianism. Sin is common to all fallen men, and cannot be the cause of reprobation by God. Why did God pass by those who are not elect? Not because they sin, we all sin... but by His own good pleasure--—thus, Infras ultimately join the Supra camp when pushed.
The Supra and Infra positions are not antithetical; they are an examination of a problem from differing points of view. Both can find support in Scripture—--Supras in the Sovereignty of God and Infras in the mercy and justice of God.
Both views, when dealing with the question of sin, make sin a permissive decree (unless God be the author of sin). The Supra position finds merit because it has God’s decrees as a unit--—there is one final aim in view, that God willed sin (in some sense) and it was used by God accordingly to reach His objectives according to His pre-creation plan. The Infra position finds merit in that Adam’s sin cannot be viewed as merely a means to an end! Sin is not an element of progress, but rather as a disturbance of God’s prefect order.
The Reformed standards hold to the Infras position, BUT do not condemn the Supra.
The two positions, as I understand it, are dancing around a fundamental problem: How did sin come into the human race without making God guilty of authoring it? Neither camp would dream of God being guilty of forcing Adam into sin. Yet, ultimately both must say God's will is done. One camp says God "permitted" sin to occur for His divine purpose. But really, what does it mean when we say "permitted"? We cannot really escape God's sovereignty by hedging. Neither can we say God mandated Adam to sin, for then we are close to alleviating Adam of sin - for who can resist God.
In my mind (a bit too fertile some would say) I will seek a solution to the origin of sin! Man was going to sin precisely as he did because God decreed it BUT also because we are by design ready (even as perfect beings) to reject God. Adam, by design, would have NEVER sinned in a stable, uninfluenced environment. But give him an opportunity to choose between God and something else --and the something else wins. No test, no sin -- provide a Law and sin is revealed.
So in this the Supra position is correct -- God decreed all events -- and by design God exploited His own design to manifest rebellion. God did not force Adam into it; He merely gave Adam a test to exploit him.
Adam had no thought to rebel until the idea was implanted and grew. Satan had no thought to rebel (for how long who knows) but God implanted the idea and it grew. I say, as all John-lapsarians do, that the fall of Satan was coincident with the creation of Adam -- Satan's testing program. Just as Adam fell by design, Satan by design fell. Again, there was no sin in Adam or Satan originally, no design flaw (so to speak)--they were perfect in all there ways -- until sin was found. All it took was a test to bring it forth. Certainly God is not guilty of sin for testing His own creation (knowing that it would bring forth sin). Something may be in harmony in one environment, but introduce a new element (man) and the harmony is disrupted. I see no reason why God should walk on eggshells (so to speak) to avoid tripping up His creation.
Is God guilty for designing Adam such? I say no. God is not required to design a man who cannot rebel. Yet, I reject free will -- Adam was in bondage to God (until something blocked his view of God). His bondage merely altered -- his allegiance changed and he was found inexplicably in bondage to Satan.
This is not Infra- or Supra-lapsarianism, it is John-lapsarianism and has at most one adherent. I see then, both God decreeing the fall and God absolved from being guilty of forcing His will upon Adam.
john
Topic: The Infralapsarian Or Supralapsarian Debate (Read 8499 times)