Supralapsarianism

[Magaret]

The doctrine that God decreed both election and [reprobation] before the fall. [Supralapsarianism] differs from infralapsarianism on the relation of Gods decree to human sin. The differences go back to the conflict between [Augustine] and Pelagius. Before the [Reformation], the main difference was whether Adams fall was included in Gods eternal decree; supralapsarians held that it was, but infralapsarians acknowledged only Gods foreknowledge of sin. Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin were agreed that Adams fall was somehow included in Gods decree; it came to be referred to as a [permissive] decree, and all insisted that God was in no way the author of sin. As a result of the Reformers agreement, after the Reformation the distinction between [infra] - and [supralapsarianism] shifted to differences on the logical order of Gods decrees.
Theodore [Beza], [Calvins] successor at [Geneva], was the first to develop supralapsarianism in this new sense. By the time of the [Synod] of [Dort] in 1618 - 19, a heated intraconfessional controversy developed between infra - and supralapsarians; both positions were represented at the [synod]. Francis Gomarus, the chief opponent of James Arminius, was a supralapsarian.
The question of the logical, not the [temporal], order of the eternal decrees reflected differences [on Gods] [ultimate goal] in [predestination] and on the specific objects of predestination. Supralapsarians considered Gods ultimate goal to be his own glory in election and reprobation, while infralapsarians considered predestination subordinate to other goals. The object of predestination, according to supralapsarians, was uncreated and unfallen humanity, while infralapsarians viewed the object as created and fallen humanity.
The term supralapsarianism comes from the Latin words [supra] and lapsus; the decree of predestination was considered to be above (supra) or logically before the decree concerning the fall (lapsus), while the infralapsarians viewed it as below (infra) or logically after the decree concerning the fall. The contrast of the two views is evident from the following summaries.
The logical order of the decrees in the supralapsarian scheme is:
(1) Gods decree to [glorify] himself through the election of some and the reprobation of others;
(2) as a means to that goal, the decree to create those elected and reprobated;
(3) the decree to permit the fall; and
(4) the decree to provide salvation for the [elect] through Jesus Christ.
The logical order of the decrees according to infralapsarians is:
(1) Gods decree to glorify himself through the creation of the human race;
(2) the decree to permit the fall;
(3) the decree to elect some of the fallen race to salvation and to pass by the others and condemn them for their sin; and
(4) the decree to provide salvation for the elect through Jesus Christ.
Infralapsarians were in the majority at the Synod of Dort. The Arminians tried to depict all the Calvinists as representatives of the repulsive supralapsarian doctrine. Four attempts were made at Dort to condemn the supralapsarian view, but the efforts were unsuccessful. Although the [Canons] of Dort do not deal with the order of the divine decrees, they are infralapsarian in the sense that the elect are chosen from the whole human race, which had fallen through their own fault from their primitive state of [rectitude] into sin and destruction (I,7; cf.I,1). The [reprobate] are passed by in the eternal decree and God decreed to leave (them) in the common misery into which they have willfully plunged themselves and to condemn and punish them forever...for all their sins (I,15).