Supralapsarianism or Infralapsarianism?

        Loraine Boettner has said that among Calvinists there has been
some difference of opinion as to the order of events in the
divine plan of salvation as it pertains to predestination.  The
question he presents is, Were the objects of the divine decree
contemplated as fallen creatures?  or were they contemplated
merely as men whom God would create, all being equal? 

	He goes on to reveal that infralapsarians say that those chosen
to salvation were contemplated as members of a fallen race.  The
order of events would then be:  God proposed (1) to create; (2)
to permit the fall; (3) to elect some out of this fallen mass to
be saved, and to leave the others as they were; (4) to provide a
redeemer for the elect; and (5) to send the Holy Spirit to apply
this redemption to the elect.  According to this plan, election
follows the fall.

	According to the supralapsarian view the order of events would
be: God proposed (1) to elect some creatable men (that is, men
who were to be created) to life and to condemn others to
destruction; (2) to create; (3) to permit the fall; (4) to send
Christ to redeem the elect; and (5) to send the Holy Spirit to
apply this redemption to the elect.  According to this plan
election precedes the fall.

	To this view Boettner disagrees.  He believes the
infralapsarian order of events are the more scriptural and
logical.  He reasons that in matters involving salvation or
punishment, sin must at least be assumed as a background for the
decree assigning men to different destinies. He goes on to say
that discrimination does not in itself necessarily involve sin,
but a choice such as is made here, to salvation or punishment,
must contemplate men as sinners as its logical basis. He, along
with B. B. Warfield and Charles Hodge agree that God is truly
sovereign, but his sovereignty is not exercised in an arbitrary
way.  Rather it is a sovereignty exercised in harmony with his
other attributes, in this case, his justice, holiness, and
wisdom.  It is not in harmony with the scriptural ideas of God
that innocent men, e.g., men who are not contemplated as
sinners, should be predestinated to eternal misery and death.

	Finally, they conclude that the Scriptures are practically
infralapsarian in their reference to 'Christians chosen "out of"
the world (Jo 15.19); and the potters right over the clay, "from
the same lump," to make one part a vessel unto honor, and
another unto dishonor (Ro 9.21).  The elect and the non-elect
are regarded as being originally in a common state of misery. 
Suffering and death are uniformly represented as wages of sin.  

	The most outstanding thing said by this theologian is that no
reformed confession teaches the supralapsarian view!  Do
theologians think that people just take every word they say as
truth that need not be searched? 

	I would like to make the case for the supralapsarian view
because that is what I believe.  Also, I will bring their points
back up and show how the supralapsarian view does not damage
their thoughts of God's decree in the matter.

	First, there are questions asked in the beginning of their
discourse that are supposed to be answered conclusively.  Were
the objects of the divine decree contemplated as fallen
creatures, or were they contemplated merely as men whom God
would create, all being equal?

	Whenever a question such as this is asked a twofold way you may
start with which part of the question you agree with, or you may
ask yourself what the difference in the two are.  Can God, who
is said to have foreknowledge, contemplate the objects of His
decree as fallen creatures, or does God contemplate them as men
whom He would create, all being equal? I'm not an ignorant
person, but is it ignorant to say that God could do either? 
What is more important, however, why ask this question?  Why not
ask what Scripture says God did do. For Boettner, Warfield, and
Hodge the answer is clear--God couldn't have decreed salvation
or punishment before the fall.  

	Men always want to come up with some reason why God has done
things the way He has other than the good pleasure of His will.
2 Timothy 1:10 has this to say about it; "Who hath saved us, and
called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but
according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in
Christ Jesus before the world began,"  Also, "According as he
hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that
we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having
predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ
to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,"
(Eph.1:4,5).  

	How can intelligent and highly thought of men say that God has
to have man's sin in view before He can decree destinies?  The
Timothy passage isn't vague, it says that God saved us and
called us with an holy calling (given to us in Christ Jesus)
before the world began.  The world began before the fall didn't
it?  Not only that, but we were chosen before the foundation of
the world, predestined to be holy and without blame being
adopted heirs of Jesus Christ himself. Why?  The good pleasure
of His will.

	Nay, say the infras. That can't be because sin had to be at
least assumed as a background for the decree assigning men to
different destinies.  

	Maybe I have to beg ignorance again, but it sounds to me as
though Boettner is saying that something other than God's good
pleasure and will had an impact on His decision of who would be
saved and who not? Scripture does not back this idea, in fact, I
see it says just the opposite. 

	I never want to be wrong in assuming what others think, but
when I read 'for God to decide misery and death for "innocent"
men is not in harmony with the scriptural ideas of God', I must
strongly object. This is the very thing God is teaching us in
Romans 9:11 when He states, "(For the children being not yet
born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of
God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him
that calleth;...)." I don't believe God thought of either as
innocent or as fallen, because He is making sure we understand
that these two had done nothing good or evil on earth yet, but
He fore loves (foreknows) the one and not the other.  Why? (since
they had not been born yet.)  So then how does God choose?  I
contend we are chosen in eternity, out of the good pleasure of
His will, according to His own purpose, which we on this side
shall never understand because we are finite beings trying to
understand infinite Truth.  How can we do this while here in
time?  We can't. 

	Going back to the point, we don't have to figure out what man
can know of God in his eternal decrees, we are looking at what
God actually says about Himself and what He said He has decreed.
 God did not decree one single innocent person to hell.  For
there has never been one single innocent person He could have
decreed to hell. Are God's decrees eternal? Yes, and all
Reformed people will bow to that truth.  

	Arminians are the ones who base God's eternal decree upon His
foreknowledge (according to their understanding of
foreknowledge).  Matthew 1:21 says that a savior would be born
and that His name would be called Immanuel; meaning God with us.
But salvation didn't start here in time--it ended here.  What
official place does Jesus Christ perform in the Godhead?  Is it
not Prophet, Priest, and King? When was Christ given this
office?  In eternity.  Jesus Christ has always existed because
He is God.  His official title is Savior, which roles the
Prophet, Priest, and King together.  

	Are you wondering what this has to do with our subject? Here is
where the confusion lies I believe.  God chose us because of His
good pleasure only.  He gave us to Jesus Christ (the Savior) to
save out of the falleness decreed, and Jesus shall never let us
go. Praise God!  We elect should fall on our faces in
thankfulness at the mere thought of this awesome grace!  	For
God to decide, before anything happens, who will be saved from
the punishment due mankind because of the fall, isn't hard for
me to imagine at all, and completely lines up with God's justice
(men will be punished for sin) because of His

holiness.  All His decrees are according to wisdom-- because He
is Wisdom. 

	Supralapsarianism does not argue the points that Boettner
brought up in the "practical infralapsarianism".  The verses
quoted can easily be fitted to the supralapsarian view.  Let's
see--Christians are said to be chosen "out of" the world"--I
believe this section of Scripture has to do with our fruits. 
Since we are not of this world we should not be like it. 
Therefore, because God chose Christians (before the foundation
of the world) not to be like the world, therefore the world
hates them.  Furthermore, I believe it speaks of the fruit of
salvation, not salvation itself.  

	The Potter and the clay is even more clear.  The Potter could
easily decide before forming the clay which pots He would keep
and which ones He would throw away even if it was from the 'same
lump'.  God has thrown many a theologian off by using man's
language and thoughts to convey ideas that don't really fit
human imagination.  Our thoughts and ways are not God's.  But
when He tells us these things in the realm of our own
experiences He is not saying that He is like us. We may never
say since we wouldn't do a certain thing that God wouldn't
either.  Many fall in that pit.  We can't fathom God's wisdom.
That's why we have to have faith that He knows what He is doing
and let Him be the sovereign God He is.  What's more, He is
sovereign whether our minds let him be or not.

	Sometimes I wonder what men are talking about when they say
something that goes contrary to what they have already written. 
Boettner had quoted the Westminster Confession on predestination
as thus: "God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy
counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain
whatsoever comes to pass:"  I want to stop here for a minute and
ask whether I am reading this wrong.  If God has ordained
whatsoever comes to pass--that must include God's choice of who
would be saved and who not, right?  And am I wrong in concluding
that God really meant 'before time began'?  Is that what 'from
all eternity' means?  This is the supralapsarian view. Now I
suppose infras don't want me to forget to quote the rest of the
phrase, and I will, but I don't want you infras to forget the
foundation that precedes the bricks: "yet so as thereby neither
is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of
the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second
causes taken away, but rather established."

	Men don't want God to be the reason men go to hell.  But when
it is written that God's decree is the pleasure of His will it
is hard for finite minds to figure out.  There isn't a better
answer in Scripture for this quandary than Romans 9:18,19:
"Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he
will be hardeneth.  Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet
find fault?  For who hath resisted his will?"  Who indeed can
resist God's eternal decree?  Nobody!  

	Grace becomes true grace when we know what we have been saved
from.  Love becomes true love when we know nothing in us
persuaded God's love to us.  We should shudder when we realize
that God's holiness has been violated, and His justice executed,
not on the one's who deserve it, but on the One who was
sacrificed for His elect's sake. 

	This grand truth becomes weak and fitted to man's fleshly
nature when he spews forth the idea of a grace that is given to
all, a love for every human God created, a holiness that looks
the other way when sin happens, or justice that only slaps the
wrist. The truth is sharper than a two-edged sword, piercing
even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the
joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and
intents of the heart. For our God is a consuming fire; wherefore
we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace,
whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly
fear', and let us quit trying to put the Sovereign God Almighty
into a little finite box.