Thoughts on Lapsarianism

19 Mar 2006 ("Apologetics Journal")

A.W. Pink & Supralapsarianism

A. W. Pink was one of the ablest Baptist theologians of the 20th century. He wrote numerous books on Christian doctrine. I am happy to say that I endorse most of what this precious brother wrote and preached. If one will read and study Pink, he will grow exceedingly in his understanding of Holy Scripture. In fact, Pink wrote most of his books in segments, through his paper, "Studies in the Scriptures." He was very well read.

I am happy that Pink takes the supralapsarian position on the decrees of God. He presents a few arguments in favor of this position. I will be posting citations from his book, "Election and Justification," (Baker Books, 1974 copyright).

First, from the first section, on Election, and from the chapter, "Its Nature,"

Pink wrote:

(underlinings are mine, SS)

"The choice of God's is an ABSOLUTE ONE, being entirely gratuitous, depending on nothing whatever outside of Himself. God elected the ones He did simply because He chose to do so: from no good, merit, or attraction in the creature, and from no foreseen merit or attraction to BE in the creature. God is absolutely self-sufficient, and therefore He never goes outside of Himself to find a reason for any thing that He does. He cannot be swayed by the works of His own hand. No, He is the One who sways them, as He alone is the One who gave them existence. "In Him we live, and are moved (Greek), and have our being." It was, then, simply out of the spontaneous goodness of His own volition that God singled out from the mass of those He purposed to create a people who should show forth His praises for all eternity, to the glory of His sovereign grace forever and ever.

The choice of God's is an UNCHANGEABLE one. Necessarily so, for it is not founded upon anything in the creature, or grounded upon anything outside of Himself. It is before everything, even before His "foreknowledge." God does not decree because he foreknows, but He foreknows because He has infallibly and irrevocably fixed it--otherwise He would merely guess it. But since He foreknows it, then He does not guess--it is certain; and if certain, then He must have fixed it." (page 64)

Pink says further:

"Second, God's act of election is MADE IN CHRIST: "according as he hath chosen us in him" (Eph. 1:4). Election does not find men in Christ, but PUTS them there." (ibid)

And again, he says, succinctly:

"Though, while all fell in Adam, yet all did not fall alike. The non-elect fell so as to be damned, they being left to perish in their sins, because they had no relation to Christ--He was not related to them as the Mediator of union with God." (pages 64,65)

Here is good testimony from this beloved man on the issue of the fall (or lapse).

"Third, this act of God was irrespective of and ANTERIOR TO ANY FORESIGHT OF THE ENTRANCE OF SIN. We have somewhat anticipated this branch of our subject, yet as it is one upon which very few today are clear (amen! SS), and one we deem of considerable importance (amen! SS), we propose to give it separate consideration (as I also intend to do, SS). The particular point which we are now to ponder is, as to whether His people were viewed by God, in His act of election, as fallen or unfallen; as in the corrupt mass through their defection in Adam, or in the pure mass of creaturehood, as to be created. Those who took the former view are know as Sublapsarians (or Infralapsarians, SS); those who took the latter as Supralapsarians, and in the past this question was debated considerably between high and low Calvinists. This writer unhesitatingly (after prolonged study) takes the Supralapsarian position, though he is well aware that few indeed will be ready to follow him." (pages 65,66)

Well, I am happy to say I have followed brother Pink. I too did not come to this conclusion hastily or haphazardly, but after long study and prayerful meditation. It is, to say the least, a minority opinion among Calvinists and the one most hated by both low Calvinists and Arminians.

Pink writes further (in answer to the question as why so few Christians and Bible students are willing to accept the supralapsarian position, in spite of the fact that it is clearly stated and defended in Holy Scripture):

"Sin having drawn a veil over the greatest of all the divine mysteries of grace--that of the divine incarnation alone excepted--renders our present task the more difficult." (page 66)

We Supralapsarians are indeed in a difficult position on this all important topic. Men have a natural, albeit depraved and corrupt, opposition and resistance to the awful doctrine of God's utter and absolute sovereignty.

Pink writes further:

"It is much easier for us to apprehend our misery, and our redemption from it--by the incarnation, obedience, and sacrifice of the Son of God--than it is for us to conceive of the ORIGINAL glory, excellency, purity, and difnity of the Church of Christ, as the eternal object of God's thoughts, counsels, and purpose. Nevertheless, if we adhere closely to the Holy Scriptures (amen, SS), it is evident (to the writer, at least) that God's people had a super-creation and spiritual union with Christ before ever they had a creature and natural union with Adam; that they were blessed with all spiritual blessings in the heavenlies in Christ (Eph. 1:3), before they fell in Adam and became subject to all the evils of the curse." (ibid)

Under an entry called "Hodge and Infralapsarianism" in my Apologetics Journal, I have this citation from Hodge (I am including a couple of my own comments upon it also).

Infralapsarians, like Hodge, agree that the whole debate comes down to the truthfulness of one simple proposition. Is the creation a means unto redemption?

If the scriptures say it is, then, as Hodge admits, the supralapsarian scheme is correct. He then sees the debate centering around one chief passage, Ephesians 3:10. He said:

"The only passage of the Bible which appears to teach explicitly that creation is a means for the execution of the purpose of predestination is Eph. iii. 9, 10. There, according to some it is said that God created all things in order that (hina) his manifold wisdom might be known through the Church. If this be the relation between the several clauses of these verses the Apostle does teach that the universe was created in order that through redeemed men (the Church) the glory of God should be revealed to all rational creatures. In this sense and in this case creation is declared to be a means to redemption; and therefore the purpose to redeem must precede the purpose to create. Such, however, is not the logical connection of the clauses in this passage. Paul does not say that God created all things in order that. He is not speaking of the design of creation, but of the design of the gospel and of his own call to the apostleship. To me, he says, is this grace given that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to enlighten all men in the knowledge of the mystery (of redemption, i. e., the gospel) in order that by the Church should be made known the manifold wisdom of God. Such is the natural connection of the passage, and such is the interpretation adopted by modern commentators entirely irrespective of the bearing of the passage on the supralapsarian controversy."

So, if we can show that the hina clause of Eph. 3:10 connects with "who created all things by Jesus Christ," then the issue is settled. So, we will deal with that passage at length.

Hodge states, in his Ephesian commentary, that the phrase "who created all things by Jesus Christ," does not connect with the hina clause, "to the intent."

If it, however, has no connection, as do the other parts of the sentence, as Hodge admits, then why does Paul add this phrase, at this point in his long complex sentence? What does Hodge and the infralapsarians say?

Hodge says it is really just a word of praise uttered with no connection with the sentence proper. He compares it to other times when a Bible writer, seemingly, in the midst of teaching a great truth, will immediately utter some word of praise, but which does not add anything essential to the thing being taught in the sentence.

It is as if I am talking about some great thing God is doing and suddenly say, "God be praised," and which, as Hodge says, could be removed from the sentence and nothing be changed as to the idea being conveyed." (paraphrased)

Is this what Paul is doing here in Ephesians 3:10 when he says, "who created all things by Jesus Christ to the intent..?"

Hodge and others make a serious blunder in interpretation by not seeing how what Paul says is not unconnected with the idea of his whole sentence. They err in not seeing that it is not an either or question, restricting the hina clause ("to the intent") to either the ministry of Paul or to creation but not to both.

But, it clearly is true of both! What Hodge says about the hina clause referring to all that God was doing through Paul and his preaching is true. It was all for the purpose of carrying out the work of redemption, which is a creation, all to reveal the wisdom of God in the whole scheme of creation, the fall, and redemption.

It seems to me that the flow of thought, leading up to the pivotal verse, verse 10, is like this:

"God made me, brought me into this world, made me a Christian and an apostle, revealed to me the gospel, sent and enabled me to preach it to thousands, yea, created my life, mission, and all my circumstances for this purpose (the same reason and purpose he has created all things), that by the working of redemption, in the body of the elect, or church, the heavenly principalities and powers might know the manifold wisdom of God (his glorious attributes of saving love, mercy, grace, justice, and wrath)."

Or, to put it more simply, Paul is saying, not only has God created me to the intent of showing, in the plan of redemption, his manifold wisdom, but he has created all things for the same end.

12 Feb 2006 - Eph. 3:10 Created To Redeem

"If we make the good of the creature the ultimate object of all God's works, then we subordinate God to the creature, and endless confusion and unavoidable error are the consequence."

"It is characteristic of the Bible that it places God first, and the good of the creation second." (Hodge Sys. Theology)

This is a very important point to address, especially as it relates to theodicy and the problem of evil. I agree with what Hodge says (on this single point) and will be elaborating upon it, the Lord willing, in the near future.

13 Feb 2006 - Creature Good

See other notes and writings on various topics in my "Apologetics" Journal.