Different Theories about the Decrees of God that have produced Three Branches of Calvinism

Orthodox Christianity is basically Calvinistic, but not all Calvinists are in agreement on every point of Calvinism. The main disagreement hinges on the logical order of God’s eternal decrees. {Do not confuse this with chronological order, because all Calvinist believe that God’s decrees were before the foundation of the world. The debate is concerning the logical order of the eternal decrees.} Three main theories have emerged as noted in the chart below: Amyraldism, Infralapsarianism, and Supralapsarianism.

The following chart provides a simple comparison of the three different views:

Note: Infra means after. Supra means before. Lapsus means fall.

Amyraldism or “Low” Calvinism is the doctrine formulated by Moise Amyraut (1596-1664), a French theologian from the Saumur school. (This same school spawned another aggravating deviation from Reformed orthodoxy: Placaeus’ view involving the mediate imputation of Adam’s guilt).  By making the decree to atone for sin logically antecedent to the decree of election, Amyraut could view the atonement as hypothetically universal, but efficacious for the elect alone. Therefore the view is sometimes called “hypothetical universalism.

Amyraldist believe that God decreed for Christ to die for all of mankind and then God chose who would be saved. Thus “Low” Calvinist can be called “Hypothetical Universalist” because they believe that it is hypothetically possible for all men to be saved, but since they will not all choose Christ, God elected some men to be saved. The greatest weakness in this view is that Christ died and made an atonement for the unelect but that atonement was of no effect, actually wasted, because the unelect didn’t appropriate the atonement. It is sometimes called “4-Point Calvinism” because of this universal atonement discrepancy. In other words, the “Low Calvinist” does not believe in Limited Atonement (or that Christ died particularly for the elect only and thereby purchased their salvation and will effectually save the elect through the means of the gospel).  Nevertheless, this view still believes that only the elect get saved and is a branch of Calvinism.

Puritan Richard Baxter embraced this view, or one very nearly like it. He seems to have been the only major Puritan leader who was an Amyraldist, but some historians would dispute whether Baxter was a true Amyraldian. (See, e.g. George Smeaton, The Apostles’ Doctrine of the Atonement [Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1991 reprint], Appendix, 542.)

This is a sophisticated way of formulating “four-point Calvinism,” while still accounting for an eternal decree of election.  But Amyraldism probably should not be equated with all brands of so-called “four-point Calvinism.” In reality, most self-styled four-pointers are unable to articulate any coherent explanation of how the atonement can be universal but election unconditional. So their ambiguity really shouldn’t be exalted by labeling it Amyraldism. (Would that they were as committed to the doctrine of divine sovereignty as Moise Amyraut! Most who call themselves four-pointers are actually crypto-Arminians.)

A. H.Strong held this view (Systematic Theology, 778). He called it (incorrectly) “sublapsarianism.”  Henry Thiessen, evidently following Strong, also mislabeled this view “sublapsarianism” (and contrasted it with “infralapsarianism”) in the original edition of his Lectures in Systematic Theology (343). His discussion in this edition is very confusing and patently wrong at points. In later editions of his book this section was completely rewritten.

Supralapsarianism or “High” Calvinism purport that God chose to have an elect and thus decreed that which would make it happen, thus holding to the harshest form of double predestination. Homer Hoeksema, a High Calvinist, noted that according to this theory history unfolded exactly opposite of the order of God’s decrees, because God’s first decree (the elect) is His ultimate goal.

There are two logical weaknesses with this view. One weakness in this is how can God elect out of that which doesn’t necessarily or potentially exist yet. High Calvinists have no answer for this.  The second weakness is how could God choose to elect and reprobate out of a non-fallen human race. But the High Calvinist appeal to Romans 9:11, noting that Jacob and Esau “had not done anything good or bad.” Also, the High Calvinist appeal to a purpose of giving the greatest glory to God by teaching that election and reprobation are based on nothing but bare sovereignty.

The reformer Theodore Beza held this view and is often credited with formulating the supralapsarian position although he did not.  Other historic proponents include Gomarus, Twisse, Perkins, Voetus, Witsius, and Comrie.  Louis Berkhof sees value in both Supra- and Infralapsarianism, but seems to lean slightly toward supralapsarianism (Systematic Theology, 120-25).  Karl Barth felt supralapsarianism was more nearly correct than infralapsarianism.  Robert Reymond’s Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith takes the supralapsarian view and includes a lengthy defense of supralapsarianism, even editing certain parts of the theory.  Turretin says supralapsarianism is “harsher and less suitable” than infralapsarianism. He believes it “does not appear to agree sufficiently with [God's] unspeakable goodness” (Elenctic Theology, vol. 1, 418).  Herman Hoeksema and the entire leadership of the Protestant Reformed Churches (including Homer Hoeksema, Herman Hanko, and David Engelsma) are determined supralapsarians—often arguing both implicitly and explicitly that supralapsarianism is the only logically consistent scheme. This presumption clearly contributes to the PRC’s rejection of common grace.

In fact, the same arguments used in favor of Supralapsarianism have been employed against common grace. So supralapsarianism may have in it a tendency that is hostile to the idea of common grace. (It is a fact that virtually all who deny “common grace” are supralapsarians.)

Supralapsarianist hold the “harshest” position on the doctrines of reprobation and “double predestination.”  Therefore supralapsarians are often mistaken for hyper-Calvinists, but that is not always true, indeed it is rarely true.  Hyper-Calvinism is a term used to refer to Calvinistic Christians who don’t fully understand Calvinism, have a warped view of God’s sovereignty and therefore are anti-missions, reject “duty faith,” struggle with the issue of prayer, and deny the doctrine of “common grace.”

Here is the simple reality: only a very small percentage of “High” Calvinist are hyper-Calvinist, but all hyper-Calvinist are Supralapsarian.

By the way, J.R. Rice and Norman Geisler were harmfully incorrect in claiming that all Calvinist are Hyper-Calvinist.

Infralapsarianism or “Moderate” Calvinism teaches that God chose His elect from among Fallen mankind prior to the atonement decree, thus Christ only died for the elect. The Moderate Calvinist appeals to John 15:19, “I chose you out of the world.” Also, they point out that the lump of clay in Romans 9 is obviously a “fallen” lump of clay. And they point out that if God had elected from an unfallen mass of humanity as the High Calvinist purpose then that would not be grace, and the decree of reprobation from an unfallen mankind would not be just.

John Calvin said some things that seem to indicate he would have been in sympathy with this view, though the debate did not occur in his lifetime (see Calvin’s Calvinism, trans. by Henry Cole, 89ff; also William Cunningham, The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, 364ff).  W. G. T. Shedd, Charles Hodge, L. Boettner, and Anthony Hoekema held this view.  Both R. L. Dabney and William Cunningham lean decidedly to this view but resist arguing the point. They believe the whole debate goes beyond scripture and is therefore unnecessary. Dabney, for example, says “This is a question which ought never to have been raised” (Systematic Theology, 233). Twisse, the supralapsarian, virtually agreed with this. He called the difference “merely apex logicus, a point of logic. And were it not a mere madness to make a breach of unity or charity in the church merely upon a point of logic?” (cited in Cunningham, The Reformers, 363). G.C. Berkouwer also agrees: “We face here a controversy which owes its existence to a trespassing of the boundaries set by revelation.” Berkouwer wonders aloud whether we are “obeying the teaching of Scripture if we refuse to make a choice here” (Divine Election, 254-55).

Thornwell, who was vehemently infralapsarian, does not agree that the issue is moot. He says the issue “involves something more than a question of logical method. It is really a question of the highest moral significance. . . . Conviction and hanging are parts of the same process, but it is something more than a question of arrangement whether a man shall be hung before he is convicted” (Collected Writings, 2:20).

All the major Reformed Creeds are either explicitly infralapsarian, or else they carefully avoid language that favors either view. No major creed takes the supra position. This whole issue was hotly debated throughout the Westminster Assembly. William Twisse, an ardent supralapsarian and chairman of the Assembly, ably defended his view. But the Assembly opted for language that clearly favors the infra position, yet without condemning supralapsarianism.  ”Bavinck has pointed out that the supralapsarian presentation ‘has not been incorporated in a single Reformed Confession’ but that the infra position has received an official place in the Confessions of the churches” (Berkouwer, Divine Election, 259).   Infralapsarianism was affirmed by the Synod of Dordt but only implied in the Westminster standards. Twisse, a supralapsarian, was the first president of the Westminster Assembly, which evidently decided the wisest course was to ignore the controversy altogether (though Westminster’s bias was arguably infralapsarian) . The Westminster Confession, therefore, along with most of the Reformed Creeds, implicitly affirmed what the Synod of Utrecht (1905) would later explicitly declare: “That our confessions, certainly with respect to the doctrine of election, follow the infralapsarian presentation, [but] this does not at all imply an exclusion or condemnation of the supralapsarian presentation.”

Crunching the Numbers: Approximately only 5% of Calvinist are Supralapsarian. Most Calvinist are Infralapsarian (Moderate). Many Calvinist are Amyraldian. In fact, many Southern Baptist that I have met are Amyraldian even though they do not realize and would never consider themselves Calvinist.  And that is because most of them believe that there is only one kind of Calvinist and that is the Supralapsarian kind.  Of course, that is ironic since the Supra’s are the fewest, but since the Supra’s have among them the “hyper-Calvinists” they get most of the attention and “bad press.”

I truly believe that most of the debate that rages in the SBC over Calvinism is because most of the Amyraldians don’t even know that they are Calvinist, and they believe that all Calvinist are Hyper-Calvinist. But in all my years as a Calvinist, I don’t know if I have ever met more than a couple of Supralapsarians… and even they were not hyper-Calvinist!

Here is a list of representatives of the different views:

REMEMBER: All Calvinists agree that whatever the logical order of God’s decrees, they were in etenity past by a sovereign God. That seperates Calvinist as Particularistic as opposed to Universalistic (Lutheran, Weslyan, Universalist), Sacerdotal (Anglican, Roman, Orthodox Greek), and Naturalistic (Pelagian, Semi-Pelagian).By the way, Arminian Theology would basically view the logical order of the decrees as follows:

• Create
• Permit Fall
• Provide salvation for all
• Call all to salvation
• Elect those who believe

Notice that Arminians believe that election is not a decree based on God’s will but is a decree based upon the belief of men. Henry Thiessen argued for essentially this view in the original edition of his Systematic Theology. The revised edition no longer explicitly defends this order of the decrees, but Thiessen’s fundamental Arminianism is still clearly evident. Most Arminian theologians decline to deal with God’s eternal decree, and extreme Arminians even deny the very concept of an eternal decree. Those who acknowledge the divine decree, however, must end up making election contingent upon the believer’s response to the call of the gospel.

In Summary:

SUPRALAPSARIANISM is the view that God, contemplating man as yet unfallen, chose some to receive eternal life and rejected all others. So a supralapsarian would say that the reprobate (non-elect)—vessels of wrath fitted for destruction (Rom. 9:22)—were first ordained to that role, and then the means by which they fell into sin was ordained. In other words, supralapsarianism suggests that God’s decree of election logically preceded His decree to permit Adam’s fall—so that their damnation is first of all an act of divine sovereignty, and only secondarily an act of divine justice.

Supralapsarianism is sometimes mistakenly equated with “double predestination.” The term “double predestination” itself is often used in a misleading and ambiguous fashion. Some use it to mean nothing more than the view that the eternal destiny of both elect and reprobate is settled by the eternal decree of God. In that sense of the term, all genuine Calvinists hold to “double predestination”—and the fact that the destiny of the reprobate is eternally settled is clearly a biblical doctrine (cf. 1 Peter 2:8; Romans 9:22; Jude 4). But more often, the expression “double predestination” is employed as a pejorative term to describe the view of those who suggest that God is as active in keeping the reprobate out of heaven as He is in getting the elect in. (There’s an even more sinister form of “double predestination,” which suggests that God is as active in making the reprobate evil as He is in making the elect holy.)
This view (that God is as active in reprobating the non-elect as He is in redeeming the elect) is more properly labeled “equal ultimacy” (cf. R.C. Sproul, Chosen by God, 142). It is actually a form of hyper-Calvinism and has nothing to do with true, historic Calvinism. Though all who hold such a view would also hold to the supralapsarian scheme, the view itself is not a necessary ramification of supralapsarianism.

Supralapsarianism is also sometimes wrongly equated with hyper-Calvinism. All hyper-Calvinists are supralapsarians, though not all supras are hyper-Calvinists. Supralapsarianism is sometimes called “high” Calvinism, and its most extreme adherents tend to reject the notion that God has any degree of sincere goodwill or meaningful compassion toward the non-elect. Historically, a minority of Calvinists have held this view.
  But Boettner’s comment that “there is not more than one Calvinist in a hundred that holds the supralapsarian view,” is no doubt an exaggeration. And in the past decade or so, the supralapsarian view seems to have gained popularity.

INFRALAPSARIANISM (also known sometimes as “sublapsarianism”) suggests that God’s decree to permit the fall logically preceded His decree of election. So when God chose the elect and passed over the non-elect, He was contemplating them all as fallen creatures. Whereas under the supralapsarian scheme, God first rejects the reprobate out of His sovereign good pleasure; then He ordains the means of their damnation through the fall. In the infralapsarian order, the non-elect are first seen as fallen individuals, and they are damned solely because of their own sin. Infralapsarians tend to emphasize God’s “passing over” the non-elect (preterition) in His decree of election.

AMYRALDISM or “Low” Calvinism believes that first decreed the atonement for all men and then decreed the elect some men.

The distinction between between these theories has to do with the logical order of God’s eternal decrees, not the timing of election. None of these theories suggest that the elect were chosen after Adam sinned. God made His choice before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4)—long before Adam sinned.