Basic HTML Version
113
3. THE INFRALAPSARIAN POSITION.
a. Arguments in favor of it.
(1) Infralapsarians appeal more particularly to those passages of
Scripture in which the objects of election appear as in a condition of sin, as being in close union
with Christ, and as objects of God’s mercy and grace, such as Matt. 11:25,26; John 15:19; Rom.
8:28,30; 9:15.16; Eph. 1:4-12; II Tim. 1:9. These passages would seem to imply that in the
thought of God the fall of man preceded the election of some unto salvation. (2) It also calls
attention to the fact that in its representation the order of the divine decrees is less
philosophical and more natural than that proposed by Supralapsarians. It is in harmony with the
historical order in the execution of the decrees, which would seem to reflect the order in the
eternal counsel of God. Just as in the execution, so there is in the decree a causal order. It is
more modest to abide by this order, just because it reflects the historical order revealed in
Scripture and does not pretend to solve the problem of God’s relation to sin. It is considered to
be less offensive in its presentation of the matter and to be far more in harmony with the
requirements of practical life.[Cf. Edwards, Works II, p. 543.] (3) While Supralapsarians claim
that their construction of the doctrine of the decrees is the more logical of the two,
Infralapsarians make the same claim for their position. Says Dabney: “The Supralapsarian
(scheme) under the pretense of greater symmetry, is in reality the more illogical of the
two.”[Syst. and Polem. Theol, p. 233.] It is pointed out that the supralapsarian scheme is
illogical in that it makes the decree of election and preterition refer to non-entities, that is, to
men who do not exist, except as bare possibilities, even in the mind of God; who do not yet
exist in the divine decree and are therefore not contemplated as created, but only as creatable.
Again, it is said that the supralapsarian construction is illogical in that it necessarily separates
the two elements in reprobation, placing preterition before, and condemnation after, the fall.
(4) Finally, attention is also called to the fact that the Reformed Churches in their official
standards have always adopted the infralapsarian position, even though they have never
condemned, but always tolerated, the other view. Among the members of the Synod of Dort
and of the Westminster Assembly there were several Supralapsarians who were held in high
honour (the presiding officer in both cases belonging to the number), but in both the Canons of
Dort and the Westminster Confession the infralapsarian view finds expression.
b. Objections to it.
The following are some of the most important objections raised against
Infralapsarianism: (1) It does not give, nor does it claim to give a solution of the problem of sin.
But this is equally true of the other view, so that, in a comparison of the two, this cannot very
well be regarded as a real objection, though it is sometimes raised. The problem of the relation
of God to sin has proved to be insoluble for the one as well as for the other. (2) While
Infralapsarianism may be actuated by the laudable desire to guard against the possibility of
charging God with being the author of sin, it is, in doing this, always in danger of overshooting