Systematic Theology, by Louis Berkhof - New Leaven

man was decreed or was merely the object of divine foreknowledge. This may have been, as Dr.
Dijk says, the original point of difference; but, surely, anyone who asserts that the fall
was not decreed but only foreseen by God, would now be said to be moving along
Arminian rather than Reformed lines. Both Supra- and Infralapsarians admit that the
fall is included in the divine decree, and that preterition is an act of God’s sovereign
will. (3) In any essential difference as to the question, whether the decree relative to sin is
permissive. There is some difference of emphasis on the qualifying adjective.
Supralapsarians (with few exceptions) are willing to admit that the decree relative to sin
is permissive, but hasten to add that it nevertheless makes the entrance of sin into the
world a certainty. And Infralapsarians (with few exceptions) will admit that sin is
included in God’s decree, but hasten to add that the decree, in so far as it pertains to sin,
is permissive rather than positive. The former occasionally over-emphasize the positive
element in the decree respecting sin, and thus expose themselves to the charge that they
make God the author of sin. And the latter sometimes over-emphasize the permissive
character of the decree, reducing it to a bare permission, and thus expose themselves to
the charge of Arminianism. As a whole, however, Supralapsarians emphatically
repudiate every interpretation of the decree that would make God the author of sin; and
Infralapsarians are careful to point out explicitly that the permissive decree of God
relative to sin makes sin certainly future. (4) In any essential difference as to the question,
whether the decree of reprobation takes account of sin. It is sometimes represented as if God
destined some men for eternal destruction, simply by an act of His sovereign will,
without taking account of their sin; as if, like a tyrant, He simply decided to destroy a
large number of His rational creatures, purely for the manifestation of His glorious
virtues. But Supralapsarians abhor the idea of a tyrannical God, and at least some of
them explicitly state that, while preterition is an act of God’s sovereign will, the second
element of reprobation, namely, condemnation, is an act of justice and certainly takes
account of sin. This proceeds on the supposition that logically preterition precedes the
decree to create and to permit the fall, while condemnation follows this. The logic of this
position may be questioned, but it at least shows that the Supralapsarians who assume
it, teach that God takes account of sin in the decree of reprobation.
b. Positively, the difference does concern: (1) The extent of predestination. Supralapsarians
include the decree to create and to permit the fall in the decree of predestination, while
Infralapsarians refer it to the decree of God in general, and exclude it from the special
decree of predestination. According to the former, man appears in the decree of
predestination, not as created and fallen, but as certain to be created and to fall; while
according to the latter, he appears in it as already created and fallen. (2) The logical order
129