Basic HTML Version
109
Walaeus, Mastricht, Turretin, à Mark, and de Moor, all admit that the fall of man was included
in the decree; and of the later Supralapsarians, such as Beza, Gomarus, Peter Martyr, Zanchius,
Ursinus, Perkins, Twisse, Trigland, Voetius, Burmannus, Witsius and Comrie, at least some are
quite willing to admit that in the decree of Reprobation God in some way took sin into
consideration. We are concerned at present with Supra- and Infralapsarianism in their more
developed form.
1. THE EXACT POINT AT ISSUE.
It is quite essential to have a correct view of the exact point or
points at issue between the two.
a. Negatively, the difference is not found:
(1) In divergent views respecting the temporal order
of the divine decrees. It is admitted on all hands that the decree of God is one and in all its parts
equally eternal, so that it is impossible to ascribe any temporal succession to the various
elements which it includes. (2) In any essential difference as to whether the fall of man was
decreed or was merely the object of divine foreknowledge. This may have been, as Dr. Dijk says,
the original point of difference; but, surely, anyone who asserts that the fall was not decreed
but only foreseen by God, would now be said to be moving along Arminian rather than
Reformed lines. Both Supra- and Infralapsarians admit that the fall is included in the divine
decree, and that preterition is an act of God’s sovereign will. (3) In any essential difference as to
the question, whether the decree relative to sin is permissive. There is some difference of
emphasis on the qualifying adjective. Supralapsarians (with few exceptions) are willing to admit
that the decree relative to sin is permissive, but hasten to add that it nevertheless makes the
entrance of sin into the world a certainty. And Infralapsarians (with few exceptions) will admit
that sin is included in God’s decree, but hasten to add that the decree, in so far as it pertains to
sin, is permissive rather than positive. The former occasionally over-emphasize the positive
element in the decree respecting sin, and thus expose themselves to the charge that they make
God the author of sin. And the latter sometimes over-emphasize the permissive character of
the decree, reducing it to a bare permission, and thus expose themselves to the charge of
Arminianism. As a whole, however, Supralapsarians emphatically repudiate every interpretation
of the decree that would make God the author of sin; and Infralapsarians are careful to point
out explicitly that the permissive decree of God relative to sin makes sin certainly future. (4) In
any essential difference as to the question, whether the decree of reprobation takes account of
sin. It is sometimes represented as if God destined some men for eternal destruction, simply by
an act of His sovereign will, without taking account of their sin; as if, like a tyrant, He simply
decided to destroy a large number of His rational creatures, purely for the manifestation of His
glorious virtues. But Supralapsarians abhor the idea of a tyrannical God, and at least some of
them explicitly state that, while preterition is an act of God’s sovereign will, the second element
of reprobation, namely, condemnation, is an act of justice and certainly takes account of sin.