Basic HTML Version
114
the mark, and some of its representatives have made this mistake. They are averse to the
statement that God willed sin, and substitute for it the assertion that He permitted it. But then
the question arises as to the exact meaning of this statement. Does it mean that God merely
took cognizance of the entrance of sin, without in any way hindering it, so that the fall was in
reality a frustration of His plan? The moment the Infralapsarian answers this question in the
affirmative, he enters the ranks of the Arminians. While there have been some who took this
stand, the majority of them feel that they cannot consistently take this position, but must
incorporate the fall in the divine decree. They speak of the decree respecting sin as a permissive
decree, but with the distinct understanding that this decree rendered the entrance of sin into
the world certain. And if the question be raised, why God decreed to permit sin and thus
rendered it certain, they can only point to the divine good pleasure, and are thus in perfect
agreement with the Supralapsarian. (3) The same tendency to shield God reveals itself in
another way and exposes one to a similar danger. Infralapsarianism really wants to explain
reprobation as an act of God’s justice. It is inclined to deny either explicitly or implicitly that it is
an act of the mere good pleasure of God. This really makes the decree of reprobation a
conditional decree and leads into the Arminian fold. But infralapsarians on the whole do not
want to teach a conditional decree, and express themselves guardedly on this matter. Some of
them admit that it is a mistake to consider reprobation purely as an act of divine justice. And
this is perfectly correct. Sin is not the ultimate cause of reprobation any more than faith and
good works are the cause of election, for all men are by nature dead in sin and trespasses.
When confronted with the problem of reprobation, Infralapsarians, too, can find the answer
only in the good pleasure of God. Their language may sound more tender than that of the
Supralapsarians, but is also more apt to be misunderstood, and after all proves to convey the
same idea. (4) The Infralapsarian position does not do justice to the unity of the divine decree,
but represents the different members of it too much as disconnected parts. First God decrees
to create the world for the glory of His name, which means among other things also that He
determined that His rational creatures should live according to the divine law implanted in their
hearts and should praise their Maker. Then He decreed to permit the fall, whereby sin enters
the world. This seems to be a frustration of the original plan, or at least an important
modification of it, since God no more decrees to glorify Himself by the voluntary obedience of
all His rational creatures. Finally, there follow the decrees of election and reprobation, which
mean only a partial execution of the original plan.
4. From what was said it would seem to follow that we cannot regard Supra- and
Infralapsarianism as absolutely antithetical. They consider the same mystery from different
points of view, the one fixing its attention on the ideal or teleological; the other, on the
historical, order of the decrees. To a certain extent they can and must go hand in hand. Both
find support in Scripture. Supralapsarianism in those passages which stress the sovereignty of