Systematic Theology, by Louis Berkhof - New Leaven

purposed to save some, then He ipso facto also purposed not to save others. If He has
chosen or elected some, then He has by that very fact also rejected others. Brunner
warns against this argument, since the Bible does not in a single word teach a divine
predestination unto rejection. But it seems to us that the Bible does not contradict but
justifies the logic in question. Since the Bible is primarily a revelation of redemption, it
naturally does not have as much to say about reprobation as about election. But what it
says is quite sufficient, cf. Matt. 11:25,26; Rom. 9:13,17,18,21,22; 11:7; Jude 4; I Pet. 2:8.
E. SUPRA- AND INFRALAPSARIANISM
The doctrine of predestination has not always been presented in exactly the same
form. Especially since the days of the Reformation two different conceptions of it
gradually emerged, which were designated during the Arminian controversy as Infra-
and Supralapsarianism. Already existing differences were more sharply defined and
more strongly accentuated as the results of the theological disputes of that day.
According to Dr. Dijk the two views under consideration were in their original form
simply a difference of opinion respecting the question, whether the fall of man was also
included in the divine decree. Was the first sin of man, constituting his fall,
predestinated, or was this merely the object of divine foreknowledge? In their original
form Supralapsarianism held the former, and Infralapsarianism, the latter. In this sense
of the word Calvin was clearly a Supralapsarian. The later development of the
difference between the two began with Beza, the successor of Calvin at Geneva. In it the
original point in dispute gradually retires into the background, and other differences are
brought forward, some of which turn out to be mere differences of emphasis. Later
Infralapsarians, such as Rivet, Walaeus, Mastricht, Turretin, à Mark, and de Moor, all
admit that the fall of man was included in the decree; and of the later Supralapsarians,
such as Beza, Gomarus, Peter Martyr, Zanchius, Ursinus, Perkins, Twisse, Trigland,
Voetius, Burmannus, Witsius and Comrie, at least some are quite willing to admit that
in the decree of Reprobation God in some way took sin into consideration. We are
concerned at present with Supra- and Infralapsarianism in their more developed form.
1. THE EXACT POINT AT ISSUE. It is quite essential to have a correct view of the exact
point or points at issue between the two.
a. Negatively, the difference is not found: (1) In divergent views respecting the temporal
order of the divine decrees. It is admitted on all hands that the decree of God is one and in
all its parts equally eternal, so that it is impossible to ascribe any temporal succession to
the various elements which it includes. (2) In any essential difference as to whether the fall of
128