Of Predestination (1)

Rev. Hellenbroek’s Catechism speaks only about the election or reprobation of mankind, but since our definition of predestination states that it includes both angels and men, we will first consider briefly the predestination of angels. Concerning angels, the Bible says comparatively little. It does, however, clearly speak of “elect angels” and “fallen angels.” Elect angels are mentioned in 1 Timothy 5:21a: “I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things...” Fallen angels are mentioned in 2 Peter 2:4: “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment.” They are mentioned again in Jude 1:6, “And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, He hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.” The election of angels, as well as of men, is of God. Some were elected to remain in their first estate, the others left to fall from their former estate, and reserved unto judgment.

The humbling fact for all of mankind is that we read of no covenant, or covenant-head for fallen angels, as with mankind, but each angel stood or fell as an individually created spirit! The fallen angels are in an irreversible state, having no day of grace as fallen man. Since we will consider angels in more detail in Chapter Six, Questions 10-14, we will say no more about them at this time but pass on to consider the predestination of men.

This may be the most appropriate time to mention the two different viewpoints which are held by various divines in the explanation of election and reprobation. It entails whether in the first decree of election if men were considered as fallen or as unfallen, as in the “corrupt mass,” through the Fall, or in the “pure mass,” created before the fall. The latter of these are called supralapsarians, sometimes called “before-the-fall,” or “above-the-fall” zealots; where the former are called either infralapsarians, or sublapsarians, termed by some “after-the-fall,” or “below-the-fall” zealots.

It is not our purpose here to enter into the lengthy arguments which learned and godly men have written concerning these terms, each trying to prove his own viewpoint. Perhaps the opinion of Archbishop Robert Leighton (1611-1684) shows the most wisdom of all when he writes in his lecture on the decrees of God as follows: “…What perverseness, or rather madness, is it to endeavor to break into the sacred repositories of heaven, and pretend to accommodate those secrets of the Divine kingdom to the measures and methods of our weak capacities! To say the truth,” he continues, “I acknowledge that I am astonished and greatly at a loss when I hear learned men, and professors of theology, talking presumptuously about the order of the divine decrees, and when I read such things in their works.”

Accordingly, we will confine ourselves here to the meaning of the terms “supralapsarian” and “infralapsarian,” with a brief statement of the viewpoints of each. “Lapsus” is the Latin word for “fall;” “supra” is the Latin word for “above;” and “infra” is Latin for “below.” The difference between the two viewpoints is best illustrated, as Rev. Kersten has done in his Reformed Dogmatics and his Treatise on The Compendium, by the following:

When listed in the order where predestination is above the Fall, we arrive at the term “supralapsarian predestination.” When listed in the order where predestination is below the Fall, we arrive at the term “infralapsarian predestination.” Thus, the supralapsarian claims that predestination (both election and rejection) precedes the creation of man, or at least before the fall of man, in the decree of God; whereas, the infralapsarian claims that God elected some and rejected others out of fallen mankind. In this point they differ, but in the following cardinal points of doctrine they both agree:

1. They agree that election is personal and particular, of persons by name, whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

2. They agree that election is absolute and unconditional, not depending upon the will of man, nor on anything to be done by the creature, as Arminian and proponents of free-will teach.

3. They agree that election is wholly owing to the sovereign will and good pleasure of God; not to faith, holiness, obedience, and good works of men, nor God’s foresight to these things.

4. They agree that both the elect and non-elect are on equal footing in the decree of predestination. Those who are for the “corrupt mass,” that is, the infralapsarians, claim that all were considered as fallen; whereas those who are for the “pure mass,” that is, the supralapsarians, claim that all were considered as uncreated, and therefore unfallen.

5. They both agree that it is an eternal act in God, and not temporal, that is, not done in time. The “afterthe-fall” zealots are not of the opinion that God passed the decree of election after men were physically created and fallen, but only that they were considered in the Divine mind from all eternity in the decree of election, as if they were created and fallen.

Having stated their differences and their similarities, we close the discussion with a brief statement of historical facts:

1. At the Synod of Dort, in 1618-1619, which included delegates from all the Reformed churches on the European continent and Great Britain, there was much debate over this point. Yet all the delegates, both supralapsarians and infralapsarians signed the Doctrinal Standards with respect to the point in question and consequently, neither viewpoint was condemned.

2. The symbols of the Westminster Assembly first met in 1643, twenty-five years after the Synod of Dort; they implied the infralapsarian viewpoint yet spoke as to avoid offence to those who favored the supralapsarian view.

3. These differing viewpoints have continued to exist in our Netherlands Reformed denomination also, but with peace, love, and harmony. For instance, Rev. G.H. Kersten was a supralapsarian, while Rev. G. Van Reenen was an infralapsarian.

(To be continued)

Deze tekst is geautomatiseerd gemaakt en kan nog fouten bevatten. Digibron werkt voortdurend aan correctie. Klik voor het origineel door naar de pdf. Voor opmerkingen, vragen, informatie: contact.

Op Digibron -en alle daarin opgenomen content- is het databankrecht van toepassing. Gebruiksvoorwaarden. Data protection law applies to Digibron and the content of this database. Terms of use.

Printen