Saurin:

The third system is that of such divines as are called Supralapsarians. The word supralapsarian signifies above the fall, and these divines are so called because they so arrange the decrees of God as to go above the fall of man, as we are going to explain. Their grand principle is, that God made all things for his own glory; that his design in creating the universe was to manifest his perfections, and particularly his justice and Ins goodness; that for this purpose he created men with design that they should sin, in order that in the end he might appear infinitely good in pardoning some, and perfectly just in condemning others; so that God resolved to punish such and such persons, not because he foresaw they would sin, but he resolved they should sin that he might damn them. This is their system in a few words. It is not that which is generally received in our churches, but there have been many members and divines among us who adopted and defended it; but whatever veneration we profess for their memory, we ingenuously own, we cannot digest such consequences as seem to us necessarily to follow these positions. We will just mention the few difficulties following.

First, we demand an explanation of what they mean by this principle, ” God hath made all things for his own glory.” If they mean that justice requires a creature to devote himself to the worship and glorifying of his Creator, we freely grant it. If they mean that the attributes of God are displayed in all his works, we grant this too. But if this proposition be intended to affirm that God had no other view in creating men, so to speak, than his own interest, we deny the proposition, and affirm that God created men for their own happiness, and in order to have subjects upon whom he might bestow favours. We desire to be informed in the next place, how it can be conceived, that a determination to damn millions of men can contribute to the glory of God? We easily conceive that it is for the glory of divine justice to punish guilty men: but to resolve to damn men without the consideration of sin, to create them that they might sin, to determine that they should sin in order to their destruction, is what seems to us more likely to tarnish the glory of God than to display it.

Thirdly, we demand, how according to this hypothesis it can be conceived that God is not the author of sin? In the general scheme of our churches, God only permits men to sin, and it is the abuse of liberty that plunges man into misery. Even this principle, all lenified as it seems, is yet subject to a great number of difficulties: but in this of our opponents, God wills sin to produce the end he proposed in creating the world, and it was necessary that men should sin; God created them for that. If this be not to constitute God the author of sin, we must renounce the most distinct and clear ideas.

Fourthly, we require them to reconcile this system with many express declarations of scripture, which inform us that God would have all men saved. How doth it agree with such pressing entreaties, such cutting reproofs, such tender expostulations as God discovers in regard to the unconverted; “O that my people had hearkened unto me! O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathers her chickens under Her wings, and ye would not?” Matt, xxiii. 37.

Lastly, we desire to know how it is possible to conceive a God, who being in the actual enjoyment of perfect happiness, incomprehensible and supreme, could determine to add this degree though useless to his felicity, to create men without number for the purpose of confining them for ever in chains of darkness, and burning them for ever in unquenchable flames.

James Saurin, “The Deep Things of God,” in Sermons Translated from the Original French of The Late. Rev. James Saurin, (Schenectady: Printed by William J. M’Cartee, 1813), 362-364.

Sclater:

And hated Esau] That is, Reprobated Esau: Now that there is Reprobation, appears, because there is Election. 2. God has not Mercy on all. 3. There are Vessels of wrath prepared to destruction, Rom. 9:22, and Jude 4, ordained to this judgement. 4. Effects, denial of means to many for Salvation.

If any ask what it is? Reprobation is an Act of God whereby he determines, not to have mercy on some, but to leave them to destruction, for the glory of his justice. For the moving cause of Election that that may be known, we are to conceive the Acts of Reprobation to be two. 1. A decree not to have mercy; this Absolute, and has no other cause, but the Will of God; And let none say, this is injury, for God is bound to none. Rom. 11:33, therefore, Saint Paul refers to all God’s Will, and admits the depth of this secret, which had been vain, if the cause thereof be foresight of sin and disobedience. 2. The second Act, is ordination unto punishment, and Damnation; this has some respect unto sin, being an Act of Justice, in respect to Execution: And therefore, though it be true that God refuses to show mercy only because he will; yet he ordains no man to damnation, but for his sin; Judas damned for his sin; Comparative, why this not that, no other cause, but God’s Will.

William Sclater, A Brief and Plain Commentary with Notes: Not More Useful, than Seasonable, upon the whole Prophecie of Malachy (London: Printed by J.L. for Christopher Meredith at the sign of the Crane in Pauls Church-yard, 1650), 15.

[Notes: That last sentence may be confusing. What he is saying is that if we ask the question, “Why is this man condemned?” Scalter would say, “That man is condemned solely on account of his sin.” If we ask the second question: “Why is this man elected, but not that man?” Sclater would answer, “This man is elected, but not that man, because of the absolute will of God alone.” For the Reformed, in the first act of reprobation, namely Preterition, man is rejected solely because of the free will of God. In the second act, namely Predamnation, however, man is condemned on account of his sin only. C.f. Heppe and Leigh.]

[Introductory note: Years ago  I read Gordon Clark claim that Ephesians 3:9-10 argues for supralapsarianism. He cited Charles Hodge on this verse with a dismissive gloss. I went and read Hodge on this and actually found his comments more plausible than Clark had led me to believe. Clark had not given due respect to the doxological aspect to Paul’s reference to God “who created all things;” c.f., Romans 10:6.]

Charles Hodge:

V. 9. It was Paul’s first duty to preach the unsearchable riches of Christ among the Gentiles, for he was especially the “apostle of the Gentiles.” But his, duty was not confined to them. He was commissioned both to preach to the Gentiles, and to make all see, &c. This is the common interpretation of the passage. Others, however, insist that the all is here limited by the context to the Gentiles. But the force of and, which marks the accession of a new idea, is thus in a great measure lost. And the following verse favours the widest latitude that can be given to the words in question.

The word photozein properly means, to shine, as any luminous body does, and then to illuminate, to impart light to, as a candle does to those on whom it shines, and as God does to the minds of men, and as the Gospel does, which is as a light shining in a dark place, and hence the apostle, 2 Cor. 4, 4, speaks of the photismos tou euaggeliou. Utitur apta similitudine, says Calvin, quum dicit, photian pantas, quasi plena luce effulgeat Dei gratia in suo apostolatu. The Church is compared to a candlestick, and ministers to stars. Their office is to dispense light. The light imparted by the Gospel was knowledge, and hence to illuminate is, in fact, to teach; which is the idea the word is intended here to express.

The thing taught was, he oikonomia tou musteriou tou apokekrummenou, the economy of the mystery which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God. The common text in this clause reads konomia, fellowship, but all the corrected editions of the New Testament, on the authority of the ancient MSS., read oikonomia, plan, or, economy. The mystery or secret, is not the simple purpose to call the Gentiles into the church, but the mystery of redemption. This mystery, apo ton aionon, from ages, from the beginning of time, had been hid in God. Compare Rom. 16, 25, “The mystery which was kept secret since the world began.” 1 Cor. 2, 7, “The wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world.” Col. 1, 26, “The mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations.” In all these places the mystery spoken of is God’s purpose of redemption, formed in the counsels of eternity, impenetrably hidden from the view of men until revealed in his own time. It was this plan of redemption thus formed, thus long concealed, but now made known through the Gospel, that Paul was sent to bear as a guiding and saving light to all men.

Read the rest of this entry »

AA Hodge:

45. What is the supra-lapsarian theory of predestination?

The term supra-lapsarian (supra lapsum) designates that view of the various provisions of the divine decree in their logical relations which supposes that the ultimate end which God proposed to himself was his own glory in the salvation of some men and in the damnation of others, and that, as a means to that end, he decreed to create man, and to permit him to fall According to this view, man simply as creatible, and fallible, and not as actually created or fallen, is the object of election and reprobation. The order of the decrees would then be–

1st. Of all possible men, God first decreed the salvation of of others, for the end of his own glory. 2d. He decreed, as a means to that end, to create those already elected or reprobated. 3d. He decreed to permit them to fall. 4th. He decreed to provide a salvation for the elect. This view was held by Beza, the successor of Calvin in Geneva, and by Gomarus, the great opponent of Arminius…

47. State the arguments against the supra-lapsarian scheme.

This scheme is unquestionably the most logical of all. It is postulated upon the principle, that what is last in execution is the in intention, which undoubtedly holds true in all spheres comprehended in human experience. Hence it is argued that if the final result of the whole matter is the glorification of God in the salvation of the elect and the perdition of the non-elect, it must have been the deliberate purpose of God from the beginning. But the case is too high and too vast for the a priori application and enforcement of the ordinary rules of human judgment; we can here only know in virtue of and within the limits of positive revelation

The objections against this scheme are–

1st. Man creatible is a nonentity. He could not have been loved or chosen unless considered as created.
2d The whole language of Scripture upon this subject implies that the ” elect” are chosen as the objects of eternal love, not from the number of creatible, but from the mass of actually sinful men.–John xv. 19; Rom. xi. 5, 7.
3d. The Scriptures declare that the elect are chosen to sanctification, and to the sprinkling of the blood of Christ. They must therefore have been regarded when chosen as guilty and defiled by sin.–1 Pet. i. 2; Eph. i. 4-6.
4th Predestination includes reprobation. This view represents God as reprobating the non elect by a sovereign act, without any respect to their sins simply for his own glory. This appears to be inconsistent with the divine righteousness, as we as with the teaching of Scripture. The non-elect are “ordained to dishonor and wrath for their sins, to the praise of his glorious justice–Conf. Faith,” ch. 3, sec. 3-7, “ L. Cat,” question 13; “S. Cat.,” question 20.

48. Show that a correct exegesis of Eph. iii 9,10, does not support the supra-lapsarian view.

This passage is claimed as a direct affirmation of the supra- lapsarian theory. If the hina, introducing the tenth verse, refers to the immediately receding clause, then the passage teaches that God created all things in order that his manifold wisdom might be displayed by the church to the angels. It is evident, however, that hina, refers to the preceding phrase, in which Paul declares that he was ordained to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, and to enlighten all men as to the mystery of redemption. All this he was commissioned to do, in order that God’s glory might be displayed, etc.–See “Hodge on Ephesians.”

AA Hodge, Outlines of Theology (London, Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1879),  232 and 233.  [Note: what AA Hodge says here does not do justice to C Hodge’s full explanation of this point in this Commentary on Ephesians. The reader should also peruse C Hodge’s remarks there.]