Basic HTML Version
115
God, and Infralapsarianism in those which emphasize the mercy and justice of God, in
connection with election and reprobation. Each has something in its favor: the former that it
does not undertake to justify God, but simply rests in the sovereign and holy good pleasure of
God; and the latter, that it is more modest and tender, and reckons with the demands and
requirements of practical life. Both are necessarily inconsistent; the former because it cannot
regard sin as a progression, but must consider it as a disturbance of creation, and speaks of a
permissive decree; and the latter, since in the last analysis it must also resort to a permissive
decree, which makes sin certain. But each one of them also emphasizes an element of truth.
The true element in Supralapsarianism is found in its emphasis on the following: that the
decree of God is a unit; that God had one final aim in view; that He willed sin in a certain sense;
and that the work of creation was immediately adapted to the recreative activity of God. And
the true element in Infralapsarianism is, that there is a certain diversity in the decrees of God;
that creation and fall cannot be regarded merely as means to an end, but also had great
independent significance; and that sin cannot be regarded as an element of progress, but
should rather be considered as an element of disturbance in the world. In connection with the
study of this profound subject we feel that our understanding is limited, and realize that we
grasp only fragments of the truth. Our confessional standards embody the infralapsarian
position, but do not condemn Supralapsarianism. It was felt that this view was not necessarily
inconsistent with Reformed theology. And the conclusions of Utrecht, adopted in 1908 by our
Church, state that, while it is not permissible to represent the supralapsarian view as the
doctrine of the Reformed churches in the Netherlands, it is just as little permissible to molest
any one who cherishes that view for himself.
QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY.
Is a foreknowledge of future events which is not based on
the decree possible in God? What is the inevitable result of basing God’s decree on His
foreknowledge rather than vice versa, his foreknowledge on His decree? How does the doctrine
of the decrees differ from fatalism and from determinism? Does the decree of predestination
necessarily exclude the possibility of a universal offer of salvation? Are the decrees of election
and reprobation equally absolute and unconditional or not? Are they alike in being causes from
which human actions proceed as effects? How is the doctrine of predestination related to the
doctrine of the divine sovereignty;— to the doctrine of total depravity;—to the doctrine of the
atonement;—to the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints? Do the Reformed teach a
predestination unto sin?
LITERATURE:
Bavinck, Geref. Dogm. II, pp. 347-425; Kuyper, Dict. Dogm., De Deo III, pp. 80-258;
Vos, Geref. Dogm. I, pp. 81-170; Hodge, Syst. Theol. I, pp. 535-549; II, pp. 315-321; Shedd,
Dogm. Theol. I, pp. 393-462; Mastricht, Godgeleerdheit, I, pp. 670-757; Comrie en Holtius,
Examen van het Ontwerp van Tolerantie, Samenspraken VI and VII; Turretin, Opera, I, pp. 279-