Systematic Theology, by Louis Berkhof - New Leaven

e construed. This will naturally have an important bearing on the ministry of the
Word.
3. THE INFRALAPSARIAN POSITION.
a. Arguments in favor of it. (1) Infralapsarians appeal more particularly to those
passages of Scripture in which the objects of election appear as in a condition of sin, as
being in close union with Christ, and as objects of God’s mercy and grace, such as Matt.
11:25,26; John 15:19; Rom. 8:28,30; 9:15.16; Eph. 1:4-12; II Tim. 1:9. These passages would
seem to imply that in the thought of God the fall of man preceded the election of some
unto salvation. (2) It also calls attention to the fact that in its representation the order of
the divine decrees is less philosophical and more natural than that proposed by
Supralapsarians. It is in harmony with the historical order in the execution of the
decrees, which would seem to reflect the order in the eternal counsel of God. Just as in
the execution, so there is in the decree a causal order. It is more modest to abide by this
order, just because it reflects the historical order revealed in Scripture and does not
pretend to solve the problem of God’s relation to sin. It is considered to be less offensive
in its presentation of the matter and to be far more in harmony with the requirements of
practical life. 59 (3) While Supralapsarians claim that their construction of the doctrine of
the decrees is the more logical of the two, Infralapsarians make the same claim for their
position. Says Dabney: “The Supralapsarian (scheme) under the pretense of greater
symmetry, is in reality the more illogical of the two.” 60 It is pointed out that the
supralapsarian scheme is illogical in that it makes the decree of election and preterition
refer to non-entities, that is, to men who do not exist, except as bare possibilities, even in
the mind of God; who do not yet exist in the divine decree and are therefore not
contemplated as created, but only as creatable. Again, it is said that the supralapsarian
construction is illogical in that it necessarily separates the two elements in reprobation,
placing preterition before, and condemnation after, the fall. (4) Finally, attention is also
called to the fact that the Reformed Churches in their official standards have always
adopted the infralapsarian position, even though they have never condemned, but
always tolerated, the other view. Among the members of the Synod of Dort and of the
Westminster Assembly there were several Supralapsarians who were held in high
honour (the presiding officer in both cases belonging to the number), but in both the
Canons of Dort and the Westminster Confession the infralapsarian view finds
expression.
59 Cf. Edwards, Works II, p. 543.
60 Syst. and Polem. Theol, p. 233.
133