Which (Logically) Came First: Election or the Fall?
Within the Reformed tradition, there have been two acceptable ways to hold to unconditional election. One is the supralapsarian view and the other is the infralapsarian view. These views explain how God in eternity past logically (not chronologically) orders His decrees. Think of it as the logical steps in the eternal mind of God concerning His plan for the history of the world.
1.) Supralapsarianism
This word comes from two Latin words which mean “above/before the Fall”. It refers to God decreeing election and reprobation before or logically prior to decreeing creation and the Fall. This view extols the sovereignty of God in salvation and damnation and emphasizes the glory of God as the ultimate goal of election and reprobation. Herman Bavinck states, “. . . The two decrees of election and reprobation are to be viewed as acts of divine sovereignty prior to those concerning the fall, sin, and redemption in Christ.” [1] So, God, for His own glory, first decreed to choose a portion of humanity to be His people, and then decreed that this would come to pass through the Fall, sin, and salvation in Christ.
2.) Infralapsarianism
This word comes from two Latin words which mean “below/after the Fall”. In this scheme, God decreed election and reprobation after or logically subsequent to decreeing creation and the Fall. Herman Bavinck says of infralapsarianism, “Election and reprobation, presuppose a fallen human race, or as Augustine calls it, ‘corrupt mass’.”[2] This view affirms God’s sovereignty but emphasizes God’s grace in election and God’s justice in reprobation. Since the Fall logically precedes election, when God elects a certain people to salvation, He does so out of the fallen mass of sinful humanity. Therefore, the elect are graciously chosen by God to salvation while the reprobate are simply passed over by God and remain in a state of condemnation for their own sin.
A Graph of the Two Views[3]
What view is best?
I believe both views should hold a place in Reformed theology because both teach that God decreed to unconditionally elect and redeem a particular people for Himself before the foundation of the world. I also believe both views contain weaknesses and inadequacies.[4] But I lean more towards the infralapsarian position, as do the Reformed confessions, most importantly The Canons of Dort.[5]
Although supralapsarians were present at the Synod of Dort, its canons present the infralapsarian view. Bavinck acknowledges this: “. . . though it did not condemn supralapsarianism, the Synod of Dort’s judgments were infralapsarian in character”.[6]
Below are several statements from The Canons of Dort in “The First Head of Doctrine on Divine Predestination” which teach that God’s election and reprobation of certain individuals occurred in light of the Fall into sin. In other words, God elected not just creatures but sinful, fallen creatures in Adam who deserved the eternal death penalty for their sins.
Article 6: “According to which decree, He graciously softens the hearts of the elect, however obstinate, and inclines them to believe, while He leaves the non-elect in His just judgment to their own wickedness and obduracy. And herein is especially displayed the profound, the merciful, and at the same time the righteous discrimination between men, equally involved in ruin”.
Article 7: “Election is the unchangeable purpose of God, whereby, before the foundation of the world, He hath 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 hath decreed to give to Christ, to be saved by Him”.
Article 10: “but that He was pleased out of the common mass of sinners to adopt some certain persons as a peculiar people to Himself,”.
Article 15: “What peculiarly tends to illustrate and recommend to us the eternal and unmerited grace of election, is the express testimony of sacred Scripture that not all, but some only are elected, while others are passed by in the eternal decree; whom God, out of His sovereign, most just, irreprehensible and unchangeable good pleasure, hath decreed to leave in the common misery into which they have willfully plunged themselves,”.
To sum up these articles, in the decree of election, God looks upon “the whole [fallen] human race” suffering from “one common misery” or “the common misery” who are “equally involved in ruin” and makes His choice from “the common mass of sinners”.
These statements better align with infralapsarianism than supralapsarianism, and I believe they more clearly reflect the biblical teaching on election. But in the end, let us humbly confess, “Who has known the mind of the Lord”? (Romans 9:34), and let us fall on our faces and rejoice that “The good pleasure of God is the sole cause of [our] gracious election”![7]
[1] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: God and Creation, 364.
[2] Ibid., 337.
[3] Based on B.B. Warfield’s chart on the order of God’s decrees.
[4] You can read about them in Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics: God and Creation (pp. 388-392) or in John Frame’s The Doctrine of God (pp. 337-339).
[5] The Five Points of Calvinism come from The Canons of Dort (or The Five Articles Against the Remonstrants).
[6] Ibid, 338.
[7] The Canons of Dort, “The First Head of Doctrine on Divine Predestination”, Article 10.
