Supralapsarianism and the Covenant of Redemption

What is Supralapsarianism?

The definition of supralapsarianism changed significantly during the time of Theodore Beza. With Beza, the question of lapsarianism came to regard the logical order of the decrees of God. Both infralapsarians and supralapsarians affirm that God freely ordained whatsoever comes to pass before anything was physically created – such doctrines are not debated.

What then is the lapsarian debate about? To quote Loraine Boettner, “When the decrees of election and reprobation came into existence were men considered as fallen or as unfallen? Were the objects of these decrees contemplated as members of a sinful, corrupt mass, or were they contemplated merely as men whom God would create?”

If you answered that question from Boettner by saying “when the decrees of election and reprobation came into existence men were considered unfallen”, or “the objects of these decrees were contemplated merely as men whom God would create”, then you are a supralapsarian. In the supralapsarian scheme, God decreed to elect some creatable men logically before He decreed the fall; supralapsarians believe that God’s decree of election logically preceded God’s decree of the fall.

The Covenant of Redemption:

The Covenant of Redemption is the intra-Trinitarian agreement between Father and the Son that occurred before the foundation of the world. The Covenant of Redemption is the agreement where the Father would give the Son as the head and redeemer of the elect, and the Son would voluntarily substitute for those whom the Father had given Him. God the Father gave all His elect to the Son who would willingly take their place. 

This is echoed in Chapter 8:1 of the Westminster Confession of Faith “It pleased God, in His eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, His only begotten Son, to be the Mediator between God and man, the Prophet, Priest, and King, the Head and Saviour of His Church, the Heir of all things, and Judge of the world: unto whom He did from all eternity give a people, to be His seed, and to be by Him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified.”

The Covenant of Redemption is likewise affirmed in Head 1, Article 7 of the Canons of Dort “Election is the unchangeable purpose of God, whereby, before the foundation of the world, He has out of mere grace, according to the sovereign good pleasure of His own will, chosen a certain number of persons to redemption in Christ, whom He from eternity appointed the Mediator and Head of the elect and the foundation of salvation. God has decreed to give to Christ to be saved by Him.”

How this Relates to Lapsarianism:

What does this have to do with lapsarianism? Calvinists on every side are probably thinking “I agree with everything you said above Jonathan. What is your point?”

Election and redemption are thoroughly covenantal, being grounded in the Covenant of Redemption. It is not disputed that in the Covenant of Redemption, the Son volunteered to be the head and redeemer of those the Father chose, to willingly substitute for those whom the Father had given Him.

The Son’s role in the covenant of redemption was to willingly redeem those the Father chose to give Him. It cannot be disputed that when the decree of redemption came into existence men were considered as fallen.

Lapsarianism and the Trinity:

The above biblical data creates a real problem in the supralapsarian scheme. In the covenant of redemption, the Father would be choosing unfallen people, while the Son would be redeeming fallen people. God the Father would be viewing the elect as unfallen, at the same time that God the Son is viewing the elect that He will save as fallen. In supralapsarianism, the Father gives the Son unfallen people to redeem, while the Son substitutes for the fallen people that God gave Him. The supralapsarian conception of the covenant of redemption has the Father electing unfallen people, while the Son is viewing those God gave Him to redeem as fallen.

As I outlined above, the supralapsarian scheme creates an impossible disharmony within the Trinity (God is one in essence), which would be further intensified if I also discussed the Holy Spirit (applies redemption). Supralapsarianism logically necessitates either a rejection of the Trinity, or a rejection of the covenant of redemption (actually, rejecting the Trinitarian nature of redemption completely). The simple solution to this is to reject supralapsarianism, and agree with the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Canons of Dort instead.

The Reformed Confessions:

Chapter 3:7 of the Westminster Confession of Faith states “The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praised of His glorious justice.”

‘The rest of mankind’ are not ‘the rest of possible men’; they are ‘the rest of those human beings who constituted mankind’. According to the WCF, ‘the rest of mankind’ were ‘ordained to dishonour’ ‘for their sin’, which necessitates that mankind was contemplated as fallen “when the decrees of election and reprobation came into existence.”

People often say “Dort was explicitly not supralapsarianism, but it does not alter Calvinism”. As I have shown in this article, supralapsarianism does alter Calvinism. Earlier in this article, I quoted Head 1, Article 7 of the Canons of Dort, but omitted the sentences that explicitly countered the supralapsarian view.

The article states, “Election is the unchangeable purpose of God, whereby, before the foundation of the world, He has out of mere grace, according to the sovereign good pleasure of His own will, chosen from the whole human race, which had fallen through their own fault from their primitive state of rectitude into sin and destruction, a certain number of persons to redemption in Christ, whom He from eternity appointed the Mediator and Head of the elect and the foundation of salvation. This elect number, though by nature neither better nor more deserving than others, but with them involved in one common misery, God has decreed to give to Christ to be saved by Him.”

The Canons of Dort make two similar affirmations: (1) That God chose “from the whole human race, which had fallen through their own fault from their primitive state of rectitude into sin and destruction, a certain number of persons to redemption in Christ, whom He from eternity appointed the Mediator and Head of the elect and the foundation of salvation” (2) “This elect number, though by nature neither better nor more deserving than others, but with them involved in one common misery, God has decreed to give to Christ to be saved by Him.” The twin affirmations that ‘God chose people to redemption in Christ’ and that ‘God decreed to give people to Christ to be saved by Him’ rely on the affirmations that “when the decrees of election and reprobation came into existence, men were considered as fallen.” Such ‘contra-supralapsarianism’ statements are central to the covenantal understanding of election and redemption expressed in Dort.

Conclusion and Application:

In virtue of the Covenant of Redemption, Christians can be assured of God’s promise of salvation. Assurance of Salvation and Perseverance of the Saints are both covenantal and Trinitarian, being grounded (by decree) in the Covenant of Redemption. This is because of the inter-Trinitarian promise; the Father promised the Son that those for whom He substituted for will be given to Him by the Father. The Father promised the Son the elect in the Covenant of Redemption.

If you are a Christian, you can Christocentrically rest assured that God the Son redeemed you as your substitute. You belong to the Son, and because the Father will be faithful to His covenant promise to the Son to give the elect to Him, you will persevere to the end in Christ. We should be joyously awaiting going into everlasting life and receiving that fullness of joy in fellowship with Christ our redeemer, which should spur us to love, enjoy and serve Him. The Covenant of Redemption is the decreetive foundation to Christian hope and joy.

© Jonathan Williams, February 2012.

Loraine Boettner on Common Grace

The Argument:

Earlier this week, I received an email from a person claiming that Loraine Boettner rejected common grace. He claimed that Boettner’s rejection of common grace in ‘The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination’ proves that Common Grace is not Reformed.

He clearly did not read ‘The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination’ very carefully. The exact phrase ‘common grace’ appears no less than seventeen times in Boettner’s book, and always in the affirmative. There is even a heading affirmatively titled ‘Common Grace’, under the chapter on ‘Efficacious Grace’. To demonstrate the indisputable fact that Boettner embraced common grace, I have typed a run-down of his usage of the exact phase. An extensive treatment of Boettner’s affirmation of common grace is beyond the scope of this post.

Explicit Statements in Earlier Chapters:

“The unregenerate man can, through common grace, love his family and he may be a good citizen. He may give a million dollars to build a hospital, but he cannot give even a cup of cold water to a disciple in the name of Jesus.” – Boettner (page 47)

“God's common grace would incline all men to good if not resisted.” – Boettner (page 109)

“Arminians hold that Christ died for all men alike, while Calvinists hold that in the intention and secret plan of God Christ died for the elect only, and that His death had only an incidental reference to others in so far as they are partakers of common grace. The meaning might be brought out more clearly if we used the phrase ‘Limited Redemption’ rather than ‘Limited Atonement.’ The Atonement is, of course, strictly an infinite transaction; the limitation comes in, theologically, in the application of the benefits of the atonement, that is in redemption.” – Boettner (page 110)

‘Common Grace’ – Boettner (page 124, 131)

“Apart from this special grace which issues in the salvation of its objects, there is what we may call ‘common grace,’ or general influences of the Holy Spirit which to a greater or lesser degree are shared by all men. God causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain upon the just and the unjust. He sends fruitful seasons and gives many things which make for the general happiness of mankind. Among the most common blessings which are to be traced to this source we may name health, material prosperity, general intelligence, talents for art, music, oratory, literature, architecture, commerce, inventions, etc. In many instances the non-elect receive these blessings in greater abundance than do the elect, for we often find that the sons of this world are for their own generation wiser than the sons of light. Common grace is the source of all the order, refinement, culture, common virtue, etc., which we find in the world, and through it the moral power of the truth upon the heart and conscience is increased and the evil passions of men are restrained. It does not lead to salvation, but it keeps this earth from becoming a hell. It arrests the complete effectuation of sin, just as human insight arrests the fury of wild beasts. It prevents sin from being manifested in all its hideousness, and thus hinders the bursting forth of the flames from the smoking fire. Like the pressure of the atmosphere, it is universal and powerful though unfelt.

Common grace, however, does not kill the core of sin, and therefore it is not capable of producing a genuine conversion. Through the light of nature, the workings of conscience, and especially through the external presentation of the Gospel it makes known to man what he should do, but does not give that power which man stands in need of. Furthermore, all of these common influences of the Holy Spirit are capable of being resisted. The Scriptures constantly teach that the Gospel becomes effectual only when it is attended by the special illuminating power of the Spirit, and that without this power it is to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Gentiles foolishness. Hence the unregenerate man can never know God except in an outward way; and for this reason the external righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees is declared to be just no righteousness at all. Jesus said to His disciples that the world could not receive the Spirit of truth, ‘for it beholdeth Him not, neither knoweth Him;’ yet in the same breath He added, ‘Ye know Him; for He abideth with you, and shall be in you,’ John 14:17. The Arminian doctrine destroys the distinction between efficacious and common grace, or at best makes efficacious grace to be an assistance without which salvation is impossible, while the Calvinistic makes it to be an assistance by which salvation is made certain.” – Boettner (page 131-132)

“Concerning the reformations which are produced by common grace Dr. Charles Hodge says” and “The following paragraph by Dr. S. G. Craig very clearly sets forth the limitations of common grace” – Boettner (page 132)

Explicit Statements in Latter Chapters:

“There is, in fact, no single member of this fallen race who is not treated by his Maker better than he deserves. And since grace is favor shown to the undeserving, God has the sovereign right to bestow more grace upon one subject than upon another. ‘The bestowment of common grace upon the non-elect,’ says W. G. T. Shedd, ‘shows that non-election does not exclude from the kingdom of heaven by Divine efficiency, because common grace is not only an invitation to believe and repent, but an actual help toward it; and a help that is nullified solely by the resistance of the non-elect, and not by anything in the nature of common grace, or by any preventive action of God. The fault or the failure of common grace to save the sinner, is chargeable to the sinner alone; and he has no right to plead afault of his own as the reason why he is entitled to special grace’.

If it be objected that God must give every man an opportunity to be saved, we reply that the outward call does give every man who hears it an opportunity to be saved. The message is: ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.’ This is an opportunity to be saved; and nothing outside the man's own nature prevents his believing. Shedd has expressed this idea very well in the following words: ‘A beggar who contemptuously rejects the five dollars offered by a benevolent man, cannot charge stinginess upon him because after this rejection of the five dollars he does not give him ten. Any sinner who complains of God's passing him by in the bestowment of regenerating grace after his abuse of common grace, virtually says to the High and Holy one who inhabits eternity, 'Thou hast tried once to convert me from sin; now try again, and try harder.'” – Boettner (page 192-193)

‘Calvinism and Education’:

In diametric opposition to the indefensible claim that Boettner rejected common grace, Boettner’s views on Christian Education are thoroughly rooted in and shaped by common grace:

“The relationship which Calvinism bears to education has been well stated in the two following paragraphs by Prof. H. H. Meeter, of Calvin College: ‘Science and art were the gifts of God's common grace, and were to be used and developed as such. Nature was looked upon as God's handiwork, the embodiment of His ideas, in its pure form the reflection of His virtues. God was the unifying thought of all science, since all was the unfolding of His plan. But along with such theoretical reasons there are very practical reasons why the Calvinist has always been intensely interested in education, and why grade schools for children as well as schools of higher learning sprang up side by side with Calvinistic churches, and why Calvinists were in so large measure the vanguard of the modern universal education movement.” – Boettner (page 281-282)

Conclusion:

Loraine Boettner clearly affirmed common grace in ‘The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination’, which is the standard text on Calvinism. Hyper Calvinists are welcome to claim John Gill, Herman Hoeksema and John Robbins, none of whom have views that are Biblical or Reformed.

I will finish with a quote from John Calvin: “But we ought to consider, that, notwithstanding of the corruption of our nature, there is some room for divine grace, such grace as, without purifying it, may lay it under internal restraint. For, did the Lord let every mind loose to wanton in its lusts, doubtless there is not a man who would not show that his nature is capable of all the crimes with which Paul charges it.” (Institutes, Book 2, Chapter 3:3). Both Loraine Boettner and John Calvin affirmed the Reformed Doctrine of Common Grace.

©Jonathan Williams, February 2011.