Category: Pastoring

Within the Calvinist soteriological discussion, there exists an intramural debate regarding the order of God’s sovereign decrees for redemption and reprobation. Specifically, the question to answered is this, when the decrees of election and reprobation came into being was humankind considered to be fallen or unfallen. In other words, what did God have in view when His decrees were issued. Did He contemplate humankind as collective members of a corrupt, fallen mass or, were they seen as simply as beings that He would create. In the earlier discussion of the traditional Calvinist view, the majority Infralapsarian position was detailed. Briefly, the Latin infra locates the decree for election after the Fall and makes the objects of that decree fallen and corrupt. The complete ordering of decrees (as detailed by Boettner in Reformed Doctrine of Predestination) reads then as:

1. Creation
2. Permit the Fall
3. Election to redemption
4. Decree the work of Jesus Christ as atonement
5. Sending of the Holy Spirit for the application of redemption

Supralapsarianism

Those who order God’s decrees in a Supralapsarian fashion place the decree to election to redemption and eternal life and reprobation and destruction prior to the Fall. Thus, the reordered decrees would be:

1. Election of some of the future creation of humankind to life and others to death
2. Creation
3. Permit the Fall
4. Send Christ to redeem the Elect
5. Send the Holy Spirit to apply the redemption

With Beza as his teacher, Arminius was exposed to this plan’s ordering and it became one of the primary factors in the development of his theology. He vehemently disputed this idea as, for Arminius, it made God the author of sin and ran completely contrary to His holy character. By placing the discriminating decree in the first position, God exercises His sovereign will to elect humans as humans, not fallen humans.

The debate between the infralapsarian and supralapsarian positions is very speculative as scripture does not provide an overwhelming body of evidence confirming one side or the other. The choice is largely made along the lines of procedural logic (the rational planning principle.) Placing God’s will over the lives and eternal destinies of His creations in the forefront of all of His succeeding decrees manifests His sovereignty in what some theologians call the greatest example of soli Deo Gloria. They are convinced that this exercise best brings glory to God, the predominant aim exhibited in Scripture for all of God’s activities.

Other Views on Election

• The Calvinist View
• The Arminian View
• The Sublapsarian Universalist View

The key to understanding the Calvinist notion of divine election rests in shielding the sovereignty of God from any effectual interference by humankind. Election to salvation is rooted purely in the sovereign grace of God and it is unconditional in every aspect; it does not rely in any way on the behavior, belief, or action of the man or woman on which it is visited. Calvin says:

We shall never feel persuaded as we ought that our salvation flows from the free mercy of God as its fountain, until we are made acquainted with his eternal election, the grace of God being illustrated by the contrast—viz. that he does not adopt all promiscuously to the hope of salvation, but gives to some what he denies to others. It is plain how greatly ignorance of this principle detracts from the glory of God, and impairs true humility. (Institutes III, xxi, 1)

Calvin is quoted in a different context restating this principle a bit more starkly:

Predestination we call the eternal decree of God, by which he hath determined in himself what he would have to become of every individual of mankind…eternal life is foreordained for some, and eternal damnation for other. Every man, therefore, being created for one or the other of these ends, we say he is predestined to life or to death. (Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature ‘Calvinism’)

The Calvinist view of election has three facets; it is unconditional, individual, and infralapsarian, and scriptural references abound in support of each of these ideas. When election is referenced in this discussion, the Calvinist has in view a salvific election, one that produces salvation from perdition. This is an important but often overlooked distinction because theology also recognizes that there is an election to service and many theological disagreements balance on the recognition of this fine point. Careful exegesis is required then when stating unequivocally that one’s theological position is absolute; remember, context must always be considered when referring to a single verse in support of a tenet. Let’s look at each of the facets on their own.

Election is Unconditional

The U in TULIP represents election as unconditional; God graciously elected some to be saved according to His sovereign will without respect to their individual qualities, characters, or choices. This means that the choice was not conditioned on something that humans would do or the choices they would make, their behavior (good or bad) or any unique characteristic that might separate them from those who are bound by their sin and headed to perdition. Unconditional election is forwarded as the position that brings the greatest glory to God. Because salvation requires no human agency from start to finish God appropriately receives all of the glory for the transaction.

Scripture: Eph 1:3-6, Rom 9:10-16, John 17:2,6

Election is Individual

Election to salvation is done on an individual basis by God, bypassing one while selecting the next. While scripture speaks of God choosing a people, the Church, or a bride, this election is composed of the collective individuals who are recipients of His grace. This deeply theological concept contributes in a much greater sense than just scholastically. The joy that the recipient feels is heightened by the idea that God the Father has elected them as an individual. They are not a faceless part of the whole but a known entity to the God of the universe.

Scripture: John 6:37, Acts 13:48

Election is Infralapsarian

The question that remains in examining the Calvinist view of election has to do with the timing, or sequence of God’s decrees. The matter to be answered is when did God decree that salvation would be granted to the elect, before or after the decree to allow the Fall. Calvinist theologians can indicate disagreement on this point, some leaning toward Supralapsarian timing while others take the Infralapsarian view. The orders of each are:

Supralapsarianism (Decree of Salvation/Reprobation precedes the decree to allow the Fall)

• The decree to save some and condemn others
• The decree to create both the elect and the reprobate
• The decree to permit the Fall of both classes
• The decree to provide salvation only for the elect

Infralapsarianism

• The decree to create human beings
• The decree to permit the Fall
• The decree to save some and condemn others
• The decree to provide salvation only for the elect

Of the two, the dominant position through Calvinist history has been the Infralapsarian position though the issue is often left in an indefinite state that allows for a melding of the two positions. Once again, the theological desire to protect the sovereignty and the moral integrity of God is foremost in the conduct of this intramural argument. When searching the Scriptures for support, an important cue to remember is that when election to salvation is seen, it must logically follow that the need for that election is driven by a humankind that requires saving.

Scripture: Acts 13:48, Rom 8:29-30

Conclusion

The unconditional nature of election to salvation is key to the entire Calvinist theological framework. When contrasting this system with others, much of the debate hinges, knowingly or unknowingly on understanding the true positions of competing theologies with regard to election. It is incumbent upon us then to glorify God through our devotion to proper scholarship before engaging in any form of definitive declaration as to the validity or illegitimacy of positions not our own.

Solus Christus

Other Views on Election

• The Arminian View
• The Supralapsarian Calvinist View
• The Sublapsarian Universalist View

The sotereological frameworks of Calvin and Arminius have been widely debated since their codification and there remains today an ongoing kerfuffle, especially in hyperventilated world of the blogosphere where anonymity often shields the purveyors of ideas from having to support them by examining their underpinnings. The positions taken are often of the ‘I’m right because my beliefs are beyond challenge’ sort and any engagement usually degenerates (with proper Christian faux-humility – e.g. ‘forgive me for disagreeing’, ‘we pray you’ll come to understand your error’, etc.) into disagreement without adequate consideration of the opposing position. What I often discover being left out of these C&A spats is any discussion of one of the fundamental differences between the two schools of thought, the concept of election. Because an understanding of divine election is so critical to being an educated participant in the debate, my contribution to the conversation will be to outline the different positions that are taken, starting with the classical Calvinist and Arminian positions.

God is glorified and our faith enriched when we all contribute to the conversation and I would encourage anyone who has something to add to do so. That said, I have but one requirement and that would be that sources and citations be included with your statements. This helps all who read the threads to follow up and explore our points further AND it prevents us from furthering mythological positions that have no actual support. As an example, the Arminian position is often misrepresented on several points. For one, there is a meme that winds up in many posts that states Arminian theology as seeing humankind as less than totally depraved. Though it is completely untrue, this idea is passed from person to person without any real effort made to discover whether or not it is correctly representative of the theology. This lack of scholarship is not glorifying when discussing the matters of God.

So, on with the show…