Debates on Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism
already chosen as the head of the church—was simultaneously chosen as the mediator who would redeem the elect. This teaching affirms that Christ and his church are inseparably united in God's eternal purposes.
Key Takeaways 1. God's Sovereign Plan: Adam's fall and human sin were part of God's eternal plan to reveal his mercy and justice. Though the reasons for this plan are beyond our understanding, they reflect
God's wisdom and glory.
2. Election and Reprobation: In supralapsarianism, God's decrees to elect some and pass over others precede his decrees to create and permit the fall. This highlights God's sovereignty in salvation.
3. Christ and the Church: The election of Christ as Savior and the church as his people are inseparably united. God's plan for salvation always includes both the elect and Christ as their mediator.
Debates on Supralapsarianism and Infralapsarianism The question of whether God's decrees of election and reprobation come before or after the fall (the distinction between supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism) was a subject of significant debate in the Reformed churches. However, the churches consistently leaned toward infralapsarianism, which considers election and reprobation within the context of humanity's fallen
state. No Reformed confession officially adopts the supralapsarian view.
At the Synod of Dort (1618–1619), some theologians, such as Gomarus and Maccovius, supported supralapsarianism. Others, including the delegates from South Holland, Overijssel, and Friesland, preferred not to take a definitive stance, seeking a formulation acceptable to both sides. Ultimately, the Synod described election in infralapsarian terms, stating that God chose certain individuals from "the whole human race, which had fallen by its own fault into sin and ruin." This description intentionally avoided rejecting supralapsarianism outright, recognizing that some respected theologians—such as Calvin and Beza—had occasionally used strong language that sounded supralapsarian.
Controversy Over Harsh Expressions The Synod faced challenges from the Remonstrants (Arminians), who seized upon certain harsh statements made by some Reformed theologians. These included claims like:
God created some people specifically to be damned.
God predestined people to sin or caused them to sin.
God acts insincerely in calling people he does not intend to save.
These statements were often taken out of context or exaggerated, and the Synod was careful to avoid such language. Delegates from England, Bremen, and Hesse even urged the Synod to formally condemn these harsh expressions. However, the Synod resisted outright condemnation for several reasons:
1. Scripture itself sometimes uses strong language when speaking of God's sovereignty.
2. These expressions, when read in their original context, might not be as severe as they appear.
3. Responsibility for these statements rested with individual theologians, not the church as a whole.
Instead, the Synod issued a general warning against using such harsh expressions, without explicitly naming or condemning them. While the Synod did not adopt supralapsarianism into its confession, it also did not condemn it.
The Westminster Assembly's Approach Similarly, the Westminster Assembly (1643–1649) deliberately avoided taking sides between the supralapsarian and infralapsarian positions. By leaving the issue open, it allowed for freedom of opinion within the Reformed tradition.
A Balanced View Although infralapsarianism became the official position in Reformed confessions and was often emphasized in preaching, supralapsarianism continued to have its advocates. Those who favored it usually acknowledged the validity of the infralapsarian view and accepted its prominence in the church's official teachings.
This openness reflects the Reformed tradition's effort to maintain unity while allowing for differing theological perspectives on this profound and complex topic.
Opposition to Predestination The doctrine of predestination, even in its milder forms, faced resistance early on. Critics such as Erasmus and others during the Reformation, as well as groups like the Socinians, rejected
predestination entirely. Instead, the Socinians taught that God decrees to save those who keep his commandments and punishes those who don't, emphasizing human free will even at the cost of denying God's perfect knowledge.
In the Netherlands, theologians like Arminius criticized the Reformed view of predestination. Arminius argued that God's election was based on foreseeing who would, by grace, believe in Christ and persevere in faith. While he affirmed the necessity of grace, Arminius and his followers (the Remonstrants) taught that this grace could be resisted, leaving the ultimate choice of salvation in human hands. Over time, this emphasis on human responsibility shifted the focus away from God's sovereignty and made individuals the final arbiters of their destiny.
The Spread of Arminianism Arminian ideas influenced many groups, including the school at Saumur in France, where Amyraut proposed a compromise. He suggested that God first decreed to save all who believe in Christ but, knowing that no one could believe on their own, also decreed to give faith to some. However, this "double decree" effectively elevated the universal offer of salvation above God's specific election. Though condemned by the Formula Consensus (1675), Amyraut's ideas had a lasting impact and contributed to growing Arminian trends in the 17th and 18th centuries. Movements like Methodism, Deism, and others reflected elements of Arminian theology, emphasizing human choice in salvation. Only a few theologians, such as Jonathan
Edwards in North America, stood firmly against these trends, defending the Reformed understanding of predestination.
Modern Challenges to Predestination
By the 19th century, new ways of thinking—like determinism in philosophy—offered alternative explanations for human behavior.
Determinism, whether rooted in pantheism (the belief that all is God) or materialism (which denies God's role), reduced human life to blind fate and natural processes. Though superficially similar to predestination, determinism left no room for a wise and sovereign
God governing history.
Some modern theologians misunderstood predestination as deterministic and argued against it, saying that every person is equally destined for both good and evil. Others, like Schleiermacher, softened the idea of reprobation (God's passing over some) and suggested that, under different circumstances, everyone could eventually be saved.
New Approaches to Predestination Modern theology often attempts to reinterpret or escape the traditional doctrine of predestination:
1. Predestination as Historical Reality: Some argue that God's decrees are not eternal decisions but are worked out in history. In this view, God's election and reprobation are not preordained but simply reflect what happens in time. However, this collapses the distinction between God and the world, turning theism (belief in a personal God) into pantheism (where
God and creation are indistinguishable).
2. Predestination of the Church, Not Individuals: Others propose that God's election is focused on groups—such as nations or the church—rather than individuals. According to this view, God calls nations and individuals over time, as they become receptive to Christianity.
This approach sees