Basic HTML Version
112
representations man appears in the divine decree first as creabilis et labilis (certain to be
created and to fall). The objects of the decree are first of all men considered as mere
possibilities, as non-existent entities. But such a decree necessarily has only a provisional
character, and must be followed by another decree. After the election and reprobation of these
possible men follows the decree to create them and to permit them to fall, and this must be
followed by another decree respecting these men whose creation and fall have now been
definitely determined, namely, the decree to elect some and to reprobate the rest of those who
now appear in the divine purpose as real men. Supralapsarians claim that this is no insuperable
objection because, while it is true that on their position the actual existence of men has not yet
been determined when they are elected and reprobated, they do exist in the divine idea. (3) It
is said that Supralapsarianism makes the eternal punishment of the reprobate an object of the
divine will in the same sense and in the same manner as the eternal salvation of the elect; and
that it makes sin, which leads to eternal destruction, a means unto this end in the same manner
and in the same sense as the redemption in Christ is a means unto salvation. If consistently
carried through, this would make God the author of sin. It should be noted, however, that the
Supralapsarian does not, as a rule, so represent the decree, and explicitly states that the decree
may not be so interpreted as to make God the author of sin. He will speak of a predestination
unto the grace of God in Jesus Christ, but not of a predestination unto sin. (4) Again, it is
objected that Supralapsarianism makes the decree of reprobation just as absolute as the decree
of election. In other words, that it regards reprobation as purely an act of God’s sovereign good
pleasure, and not as an act of punitive justice. According to its representation sin does not
come into consideration in the decree of reprobation. But this is hardly correct, though it may
be true of some Supralapsarians. In general, however, it may be said that, while they regard
preterition as an act of God’s sovereign good pleasure, they usually regard precondemnation as
an act of divine justice which does take sin into consideration. And the Infralapsarian himself
cannot maintain the idea that reprobation is an act of justice pure and simple, contingent on
the sin of man. In the last analysis, he, too, must declare that it is an act of God’s sovereign
good pleasure, if he wants to avoid the Arminian camp. (5) Finally, it is said that it is not
possible to construe a serviceable doctrine of the covenant of grace and of the Mediator on the
basis of the Supralapsarian scheme. Both the covenant and the Mediator of the covenant can
only be conceived as infralapsarian. This is frankly admitted by some Supralapsarians. Logically,
the Mediator appears in the divine decree only after the entrance of sin; and this is the only
point of view from which the covenant of grace can be construed. This will naturally have an
important bearing on the ministry of the Word.